BAKSHISH SINGH versus M/S DARSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

BAKSHISH SINGH versus M/S DARSHAN ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, prescribing a qualifying service of five years for gratuity, is valid and not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution since it constitutes a minimal service condition and a reasonable restriction in the public interest; the provision cannot be struck down generally on the ground of unreasonableness and the statutory authorities’ interpretation is upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Bakshish Singh; Respondent: M/s. Darshan Engineering Works & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final (supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; validity of section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 upheld; High Court decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Payment of Gratuity, Reasonableness of Statutory Restrictions, Right to Carry on Business Under Article 19(1)(g), Qualifying Service Period for Gratuity
Constitutional Law Service Law Labour Law Payment of Gratuity Reasonableness of Statutory Restrictions Right to Carry on Business Under Article 19(1)(g) Qualifying Service Period for Gratuity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakshish Singh

Appellant

M/s. Darshan Engineering Works & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final (supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Punjab & Haryana High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prescribing a 5-year qualifying service for gratuity is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the provision imposes an unreasonable restriction on the employer’s right to carry on business

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, prescribing a qualifying service of five years for gratuity, is valid and not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution since it constitutes a minimal service condition and a reasonable restriction in the public interest; the provision cannot be struck down generally on the ground of unreasonableness and the statutory authorities’ interpretation is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; validity of section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 upheld; High Court decision set aside.

Orders

  • Interim orders of stay made final.
  • Respondents to pay costs to appellants.