The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's eligibility for gratuity. Respondents agreed to release gratuity with interest, to which the petitioner agreed.
Respondents to release gratuity along with 10% per annum interest to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1178 of 2024 Date of Decision:29.05.2024
Sandeep Sangwan
….Petitioner
vs.
Bank of India and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Tarlok, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondents-Bank
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
“Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has not been extended benefit of gratuity on the ground that he has not completed minimum requisite period of five years. The petitioner has worked with respondent-bank for four years and nine months and as per Section 2A(2)(a)(ii) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with judgment of Madras High Court in Mettur Beardsell, Ltd. (represented by its Personnel Manager), Madras v.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act), Madras, 1996 SCC OnLine Mad 344, if an employee completes period of 240 days, it is
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.05.29 00:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No. 1178 of 2024 -2-
considered as one year, thus, petitioner has completed service of five years and he is entitled to payment of gratuity.
Notice of motion returnable for 13.05.2024.
Mr. Teginder Singh, Advocate, who on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply and address the arguments.
To be shown in urgent.”
going to release gratuity alongwith interest @ 10% per annum in favour of the petitioner.
disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE
29.05.2024
paramjit
| Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes | |
|---|---|
| Whether reportable: | No |
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2024.05.29 00:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to gratuity by treating 240 days of service as one year under Section 2A(2)(a)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mettur Beardsell, Ltd. (represented by its Personnel Manager), Madras v.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity AcReferred¶14
Mettur Beardsell, Ltd. (represented by its Personnel Manager), Madras v.Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Ac
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Sangwan
Bank of India and others
Jagmohan Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
