Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Jan 09, 2009 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version | Audio | Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
Industry & Economy
-
Social Security States - Tamil Nadu HC sets guideline for dealing with gratuity cases Our Legal Correspondent Chennai, Jan. 8 Proceedings for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, must be taken up under that law and not under any other Act, Madras High Court has ruled. When a special law created a right as well as remedy, the litigant must be directed to go before that forum and not any other body, the First Bench held. Setting aside an order dated November 2, 2006, of the single judge ruling that any person unsatisfied with disbursement of gratuity should find solution only under the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act, and could not go before authorities under Gratuity Act, the Bench comprising Chief Justice A.K. Ganguly, as he then was, and Mr Justice K. Chandru held that the argument of the Special Officer, Kanyakumari Dist Central Co-op Bank, Nagercoil, that the Co-op Societies Act was the self-contained law for the petitioner (K. Ambalanatha Doss, employee of the Kanyakumari Co-op Bank) could not be accepted. The bank, the Bench noted, instead of participating before the controlling authority under the Gratuity Act (Asst Labour Commissioner, Tirunelveli) filed a writ petition before this Court making a strange prayer. The plea of the bank was that the Assistant Labour Commissioner should be directed to return the gratuity application of the appellant in the gratuity case. If for any reason the bank felt that the assistant commissioner was lacking jurisdiction, even the question of lack of jurisdiction could be raised before the statutory authority instead of rushing to this Court, the Bench ruled. The single judge said, inter alia, the Assistant Labour Commissioner was at liberty to approach the Registrar of Co-op Societies under Section 153 of Societies Act. The Bench referred to a decision of Supreme Court (State of Punjab vs Labour Court, Jullundur – AIR 1979 SC 1981) and said that the application filed by the employee (appellant) under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act did not lie. While setting aside the single judge’s order, the Bench ruled that the proceedings before Assistant Labour Commissioner in gratuity case would stand restored. More Stories on : Social Security | Courts/Legal Issues | Tamil Nadu
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2009, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|