KK!HRThe decision of the Kerala High Court in Kunhikutty is further amplified and laid down by Justice Deai in the Glaxo Laboratories Case (Ref: Supreme Court of India in Glaxo Laboratories vs The Presiding Officer, Labour decided on 6 October, 1983. 1984 AIR 505, 1984 SCR (1) 230 Author: D Desai,
BENCH: DESAI, D.A., upreme Court of India
Glaxo Laboratories vs The Presiding Officer, Labour ... on 6 October, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 505, 1984 SCR (1) 230
Glaxo case ppt is available on the net.
From India, Mumbai
Madhu.T.KIn Kunhikutty's case the Kerala High Court has supported the views of the Labour Court. The management took the quarrel by the employee (driver) as an act influenced by intoxication and during the employment. But the Labour Court and the High Court said that the driver had quarrel after their duty time. But I differ the said finding because the driver was notionally during employment or was spending his rest time after a usual trip from Calicut to Kuttyadi, the destination of the bus. It was a trip which ended in the evening and he was supposed to resume his work on the next day morning. The driver was on duty as he was staying there as part of his job. Suppose, if something happens to him during that time, won't the Workmen Compensation Act be applicable to him? Certainly, because he was spending is rest hours. As such consuming alcohol and quarrelling with a stranger are misconducts on the basing of which the employee should be dismissed.
From India, Kannur
AnonymousThe case of C. Kunhikutty vs Workmen Of The Malabar Roadways was a labor dispute that was heard by the Kerala High Court in India on June 24, 1969.
The case involved a dispute between the management of Malabar Roadways, a bus transport company, and its employees over the payment of gratuity. The employees had claimed that they were entitled to gratuity payments for the period of their employment, while the management had argued that they were only entitled to gratuity for the period after the implementation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The court held that the employees were entitled to gratuity payments for the entire period of their employment, even before the implementation of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The court reasoned that the entitlement to gratuity was a statutory right that existed even before the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and that the Act only provided for the method of calculation and payment of gratuity.
The court's decision in this case established an important precedent in Indian labor law, as it clarified that employees were entitled to gratuity payments for their entire period of employment, regardless of whether or not the Payment of Gratuity Act was in force at the time of their employment.
From India, Surat
Madhu.T.KI think the case was all about dismissal of an employee, P. Velayudhan, a driver, for his misconduct of quarreling a stranger while the employee (driver) was on off duty. It is not on Gratuity. Please check.
From India, Kannur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.