Payment of Gratuity Act

The petitioners, who were engineers and other staff employed for the Beas Project, challenged orders of retrenchment, claiming they were employees of the Central Government, governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and entitled to quasi‑permanent status and transfer to the Bhakra Beas Man…

The appellants, former employees of a government‑owned sugar undertaking, opted for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and received the special compensation prescribed by a Government Order. They later claimed lay‑off compensation for a period preceding the VRS, filing applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industri…

Guru Jambheshwar University terminated the services of Dharam Pal, an unskilled workman paid on a monthly basis, after closing its farming operations. The workman claimed that the retrenchment compensation paid under Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was insufficient because the Labour Court had calcu…

Som Prakash Rekhi, a clerk of Burmah Shell Oil Storage Ltd., retired with a pension of Rs.165.99 per month under a 1950 trust deed and was also covered by the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employer deducted amounts for PF contributions and gratuity, reducing his pension t…

The Indian Banks Association and several nationalised banks challenged an Industrial Tribunal award that classified deposit collectors and commission agents as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and ordered back wages, gratuity and other benefits. The banks argued that the collectors were engaged on a pur…

The National Kamgar Union (appellant) challenged the closure of Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd.'s manufacturing unit, alleging that more than 100 workers were employed and that the employer failed to comply with Section 25-K of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court had held that 115 workers were em…

Prem Singh, a welder, worked for about 37 years in a work‑charged establishment of the Uttar Pradesh government and was later regularised before superannuation. He claimed that the period spent in the work‑charged establishment should be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benef…