Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training  ||  Delhi High Court Quashed Cases over Allegations of Excess Lead Content in Maggi Noodles  ||  Madras High Court: Advocates Cannot Hinder Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers Before a Court  ||  Allahabad HC Awarded Rs. 4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation in a Beef Case  ||  Allahabad High Court: Strong Suspicion, Not Proof of Guilt, is Sufficient to Frame Charges  ||  Delhi HC: Prior Sanction Not Required Where Cognizance Preceded 2018 PC Act Amendment  ||  Bombay High Court: The Notion of a "Perfect Victim" in Rape Cases is a Myth  ||  Allahabad High Court: Prior Agreement With Inquiry Report Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved