Dismissed

pandurang rajaram karle v. the chairman,mumbai port trust and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2006WP/2932/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the calculation of gratuity. It held that the authorities correctly computed gratuity for the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for piece-rated employment, and no relief was due.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were not entitled to any further relief.

pandurang rajaram karle Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O. O. C. J.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2932 OF 2006

¶5

Pandurang Rajaram Karle Vs. The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust & Ors.

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Pai with Mr. N. Mouje i/b Mulla & Mulla & C. B. & C. for Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶10

^th December, 2006.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Both the Controlling authority and, in appeal, the Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have come to the conclusion that the gratuity that was due and payable to the Petitioner was correctly calculated and that the Petitioner was not entitled to any further relief. The Petitioner was employed as a Shed Superintendent at the time of his retirement. By a settlement dated 2^nd February, 1974 incentives were provided for piece rated employees and among them in clause (2)(II)(b) is the Shed Superintendent of the Port Trust. There was similarly a

¶13

¶14

further settlement dated 20^th February, 1979 between the Dock Workers' Union and the Port Trust under which the post of Shed Superintendent was qualified for incentive payments at the rate of 50% of the average piece rate earnings. The controlling authority has noted that for a period of over 20 years and more, the Petitioner received the benefit of the incentive payment that was applicable to piece rated workers. The first proviso to sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act lays down that in the case of a piece rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and for this purpose, the wages paid for overtime work shall not be taken into account. Both the authorities have held that the gratuity was duly calculated in accordance with the aforesaid provision. No case is made out under Article 226. The Petition is dismissed.

pandurang rajaram karle v. the chairman,mumbai port trust and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

pandurang rajaram karle v. the chairman,mumbai port trust and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tarachand Mansilal and Co. Vs S.S.Shete and Anr.

Vasudev N. Valecha Vs Inderjeet Sharma and Anr.

Ranjit Meghji Kapadia Vs Dr. Paresh Kantilal Dalal

M/S. Maya Developers Vs Shyamsunder Jagdishprasad Sharma and 17 Ors.

Pankesh Diwanchand Chugasrani Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr.

Shri Rameshwar Laxmandas Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.