Ker. HC: No Member of Hindu Public Can Claim to Perform Services That Only Archakas Can Perform  ||  Bom HC: Emp. to Ensure That Minor Mistakes Due to Candidate’s Disability Shouldn’t Lead to Job Loss  ||  SC Criticises Centre For Not Specifying Range of Rates For Treatment in Pvt. Hospitals & Clinics  ||  Supreme Court: Stay Orders of High Court on Trials Not to Get Vacated Automatically  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Apply TDS to Business Undertakings Where Assessee Not Paying Income  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t File HC Petition For Same Detention Order Even on Raising New Grounds  ||  Del HC: No Restraint in Grant of Bail Under S. 37 of NDPS Act For Undue Delay in Completion of Trial  ||  Gau. HC: Conviction Under Section 489B of Indian Penal Code Set Aside For Lack of Mens Rea  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act  ||  Mad. HC: Jail is The Rule And Bail an Exception Under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act    

Motel Sunny vs. Naresh Shankarao Mhaiskar And Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (15 Jun 2023)

To invoke the jurisdiction of Controlling Authority under the PG Act, 10 employees having being employed by establishment in preceding calendar year has to be established

MANU/MH/2152/2023

Service

Present petition questions the judgment passed by the Controlling Authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ["The PG Act"] whereby the claim made by the Respondents for gratuity has been granted. The Petitioner submits that there is a jurisdictional lacunae as there is no material on record to indicate that, the Petitioner at any point of time had ever employed more than 10 persons, which is the basic requirement for attracting the provisions of the PG Act.

For the PG Act to be applicable, in view of the language of Section 1(3) of the PG Act, it is necessary for there to be 10 employees employed by the establishment in the preceding calender year. To invoke the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under the PG Act, a jurisdictional fact of 10 employees having been employed by the establishment at any point of time has to be established on record.

It is apparent that the basic jurisdictional fact that there were minimum 10 numbers of employees employed by the petitioner establishment at any point of time has neither been pleaded nor established, which would indicate that the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority could not have been invoked.

It is therefore apparent that in absence ofthe pleadings and establishment of the necessary jurisdictional facts, it was not permissible for the Controlling Authority to have exercised the jurisdiction, in view of which the impugned judgments cannot be sustained. They are accordingly quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the Respondent is dismissed.Petition allowed.

Tags : GRATUITY   GRANT   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved