Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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