Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.G. VIKAS versus THE A.A.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.G. Vikas v. The A.A. - WRIT - C No. 16630 of 1989 [2007] RD-AH 6264 (5 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16630 of 1989

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. vs. The Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act at Kanput (Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P.) and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.  This writ petition is directed against order dated 15.7.1989 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner (O.S.) Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur/Appellate Authority.  The said order was passed in Payment of Wages Appeal No.5 of 1986.  The said appeal was directed against order dated 29.1.1986 passed by Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 in P.G. Case no.38 of 1983 - M/s Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Munderwa Basti vs. Anwar Khan and another. The said order has also been challenged through this writ petition.  Both the authorities below held that respondent no.3 - Anwar Khan was a seasonal employee hence he was entitled to the gratuity calculated on the basis of seven days pay  per year for every completed year of work.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that provision of gratuity is provided under Regulation 141 of U.P. Cane Cooperative Service 1975 hence gratuity could not be directed to be paid under Payment of Gratuity Act.  Under the said Regulation also an employee is entitled to gratuity.  Under the said provision gratuity is to be calculated on the basis of ½ month's pay on each year's completed service.  By the impugned orders only seven days pay for each completed year has been awarded as gratuity.

No other defect has been pointed out in the impugned orders.  Writ petition is therefore dismissed.  

If the awarded amount has been deposited by the petitioner then the same shall at once be paid to respondent no.3 alongwith any interest which may have actually accrued thereupon.

5.4.2007

RS/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.