kerala electrical & alliED CO.

VS

RAVEENDRAN PILLAI

[1999-II-LLJ-1001-HC-KER]

-    COMPANY HAD A PRIVATE GRATUITY SCHEME WHICH PROVIDED CEILING OF 20 MONTHS SALARY

-    CONSEQUENT TO THE 1994 AMENDMENT BRINGING ALL EMPLOYEES UNDER THE  P.G.ACT THE RULE ON CEILING WAS RETROSPECTIVELY AMENDED FIXING A CEILING OF RS.1 LAKH

-      TWO MANAGERS WHO RETIRED IN 1996 & 1997 DEMANDED GRATUITY BASED ON 20 MONTHS CEILING.

-      ARE THEY ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM ABOVE THE CEILING OF 1 LAKH?

-    ANY AMENDMENT OF RULES HAVING RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION WHICH HAS THE  EFFECT OF TAKING AWAY A BENEFIT ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE UNDER THE EXISTING RULE IS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14 & 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

-    FURTHER SECTION 4(5) OF THE P.G.ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT SHALL AFFECT THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE BETTER TERMS OF GRATUITY UNDER AN AWARD, AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT WITH THE EMPLOYER.

MOH.ZAHEERUDDIN

VS

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, A.M.U [2000 (84) FLR 818-SC]

-    PROFESSOR RETIRED IN 1993. GRATUITY NOT PAID BECAUSE OF Retirement AGE DISPUTE

-    AGE DISPUTES SETTLED IN 1996 BUT GRADUITY PAID ONLY IN 1999

-    WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCES OF DELAYED PAYMENT?

     SUPREME COURT ORDERED TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- IN ADDITION TO INTEREST AND GRATUITY AMOUNT PAYABLE.