Quashed

Shyamdas v. Sub Area Manager and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2017WPL/5373/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order that conditioned gratuity application decision on the final outcome of a pending criminal revision. The court remitted the matter to the Controlling Authority for a fresh decision on the gratuity application, noting the petitioners conviction was already suspended.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remitted to Controlling Authority to dispose of gratuity application afresh.

Shyamdas Vs Sub Area Manager and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (L) No.5373 of 2011

¶5

Shyamdas, aged about 61 years, S/o Tangu Village Sumedha P.O. Bamkimongra, District Korba (CG).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sub Area Manager, Banki Colliery P.O. Bamkimongra, District Korba (CG).

¶9

Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) D-6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (CG).

¶10

Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Main Road, Torwa, Bilaspur (CG).

¶11

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶13

11/04/2017

¶14

(1) The petitioner's application for grant of gratuity has not been decided by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on its own merit and it has been held that since the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 148, 326, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and his revision is pending consideration before this Court, the application will be decided finally after disposal of criminal case which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority.

¶15

¶16

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that application for grant of gratuity has to be decided on its own merit. He would further submit that his conviction has already been suspended by the Appellate Court, therefore, the Controlling Authority be directed to dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of gratuity on its own merit.

¶17

(3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsSECL would oppose the prayer.

¶18

(4) Admittedly, in Criminal Revision No.343/2004, order of conviction of the petitioner has been suspended by this Court on 30.03.2005, therefore, the impugned order is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Controlling Authority for deciding the petitioner's case afresh. The Controlling Authority is directed to take appropriate steps for consideration of petitioner's application for grant of gratuity in accordance with law in view of the fact that the order of conviction of the petitioner has already been suspended by this Court. No order as to cost.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶21

L/-

Shyamdas v. Sub Area Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamdas v. Sub Area Manager and 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

Laxman Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manager,Food Corporation of India Vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court

Manager,Food Corporation of India Vs Presiding Officer,Labour Court

Omprakash Agrawal Vs Munni Bai and Others

Smt. Asnara Bai Vs Divisional Forest Officer Khairagarh

Rajendra Pandey Vs Tulsidas Vaishnav