JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus PUNDALIKRAO LAXMANRAO SURYAWANSHI & ORS.

JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus PUNDALIKRAO LAXMANRAO SURYAWANSHI & ORS.

The obligation to pay gratuity under Rules 7 and 9 existed independently of non-approved Rules 6 and 10; vested rights created under the old rules cannot be adversely affected by retrospective enforcement of new rules, as per the express prohibition in old Rule 16.

Parties
Appellant: Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.; Respondent No. 1: Pundalikrao Laxmanrao Suryawanshi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 September 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment in Special Civil Application No. 5 of 1964
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Gratuity Fund Rules, Vested Rights of Employees, Approval of Rules by Registrar, Retrospective Operation of Rules
Co Operative Societies Law Employment Law Gratuity Fund Rules Vested Rights of Employees Approval of Rules by Registrar Retrospective Operation of Rules

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Appellant

Pundalikrao Laxmanrao Suryawanshi

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Bombay High Court Judgment in Special Civil Application No. 5 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether gratuity was payable to the respondent under the old Gratuity Fund Rules despite non-approval of certain rules by the Registrar
  2. 2 Whether non-approval of Rule 6 and Rule 10 rendered the other rules ineffective
  3. 3 Whether vested rights under old rules could be prejudiced by retrospective operation of new rules

Ratio Decidendi

The obligation to pay gratuity under Rules 7 and 9 existed independently of non-approved Rules 6 and 10; vested rights created under the old rules cannot be adversely affected by retrospective enforcement of new rules, as per the express prohibition in old Rule 16.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs