Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Order on Delayed Payment of Leave Encashment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the delayed payment of privilege leave encashment to retired employees. The case, arising from Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., involved a dispute over the payment of interest on the amounts due to retired employees for privilege leave encashment.

The High Court had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioners, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., delayed releasing the amounts payable to retired employees. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had directed the petitioners to pay interest on the outstanding amounts at the rate of 8.65 percent.

The petitioners then challenged this order by filing a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in response, directed the petitioners to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the payment and file an affidavit. However, the Division Bench found the affidavit to be vague and not in compliance with their earlier order.

The impugned order dismissing the Special Appeal was based on the petitioners' inability to satisfactorily explain the delay and the lack of justification for the delay in filing the Special Appeal.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed, "The Division Bench was right in finding the affidavit unsatisfactory," and further noted, "The impugned order has been complied with." Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the special leave petitions but clarified that this decision should not be construed as affirming the view of the learned Single Judge.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely payment and adherence to court orders. It serves as a reminder of the legal obligations that organizations have towards their retired employees and the consequences of not meeting these obligations.

Date of Decision: 26-09-2023                     

INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs RAMA KANT SRIVASTAVA & ORS.       

               

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/India_Telephone_Industries_Ltd_vs_Rama_Kant_Srivastava_on_26_September_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News