REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

BOPALASWAMY

Vs

MANAGEMENT OF USHA MARTIN

2001(3)LLN 213 [HC-KAR-SB]

1

 2

3

4

TWO UNION OFFICE BEARERS WERE DISMISSED FOR ISTIGATING THE WORKERS TO GO ON A SUDDEN STRIKE

THE STRIKE CAUSE PRODUCTION LOSS

MANAGEMENT WITHHELD THEIR GRATUITY FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND CAUSING PRODUCTION LOSS

IS MANAGMENTS WITHHOLDING GRATUITY PERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 5(6)

1

2

3

AS PER SECTION 4(6) GRATUITY CAN BE WITHHELD FOR CAUSING DAMAGE OR LOSS TO COMPANY PROPERTY OR FOR RIOTOUS OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

SINCE THE STRIKE WAS PEACEFUL AND THERE WAS NO MISBEHAVIOUR IT WILL NOT AMOUNT TO RIOTIOUS OR DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

PRODUCTION LOSS UNLESS QUANITIFIED AND THE EXTENT OF LOSS PERSONALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DISMISSED WORKER ASCERTAINED IT CAN NOT BE A GROUND FOR WITHHOLDING GRATUITY

2

MANAGEMENT OF CHRISTIAN MED COLLEGE

Vs

DEP LAB

COMMISSIONER

(APPEALS)

2001(3)LLN 692[HC-MAD-SB]

1

 |
2

3

SECTION 7(4) (A) GRATUITY ACT STATES THAT WHEN AN EMPLOYER DISPUTES THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY, HE SHOULD DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT ADMITTED BY HIM AND THEN ARGUE HIS CAUSE BEFORE THE GRATUITY AUTHORITY.

SECTION 7(7) STIPULATES THAT HE CAN FILE AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CHALLENGING THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY DETERMINED BY GRATUITY AUTHORITY.PROVIDED HE DEPOSITS THE AMOUNT OF GRATUITY.

FOR FILING APPEAL IS HE TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT ADMITTED BY HIM UNDER 7(4)(A) OR SHOULD HE DEPOSIT THE HIGHER AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE GRATUITY AUTHORITY?

1

2

FOR PURPOSE OF APPEAL PETITION UNDER 7(7) HE SHOULD DEPOSIT THE HIGHER AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE AUTHORITY.

SECTION 7(7) REQUIRES DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT UNDER 7(4) AND NOT UNDER 7(4)(A)

3

S ARUNACHALAM Vs

THE MANGING DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN STRUCTURALS

[2001 (91) FLR 689 HC-MAD-SB] 2001 (40 LLN 940 OR 2001 (2) LLJ 1457

1

ARE NON-STATUTORY TRAINEES ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM GRATUTITY FOR THEIR TRAINING PERIOD?

1

2

3

4

THE  DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE [SN 2(E) EXCLUDES AN APPRENTICE

THE TERM APRENTICE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE P.G.ACT.

ONLY TRAINEES PUT ON A SYSTEMATIC TRAINING PROGRAMME TO GAIN SKILL EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES COULD BE TRATED AS FALLING OUTSIDE THE DEFINITION.

TRAINEES WHO ARE PUT STRAIGHT ON THE JOB AND DOING REGULAR WORK WILL NOT FALL OUTSIDE THE  DEFINITION AND CAN CLAIM GRATUITY FOR TRAINING PERIOD ALSO.

4

BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LTD

Vs

APPELLATE

AUTHORITY 9PG ACT)

2002(1) LLJ 673 [HC-DEL]

1

WHO IS THE PROPER AUTHORITY [STATE OR CENTRAL] WHEN AN ESTABLISHMENT HAS BRANCHES IN MORE THAN ONE STATE.

1

2

AS PER SECTION 2 OF PG ACT, 1972, WHEN AN ESTABLISHMENT IS HAVING BRANCHES INMORE THAN ONE STATE, GRATUITY DISPUTES CAN BE RAISED AND DECIDED ONLY BY THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY.

THE STATE AUTHORITIES HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER SUCH ESTABLISHMENTS.