Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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