Dear All,
Please help me as I want to prepare a PowerPoint presentation on the case law "C. Kunhikutty vs Workmen Of The Malabar Roadways on 24 June 1969". So if anyone has any PowerPoint presentation on the case law, please share.
If you have any short explanation on this case law, please connect with me at "Shaikhnadim74@gmail.com".
Thanks & Regards,
Shaikh Mohammad Nadim
Asst. Manager Industrial Relations
Mo. No. 91 89800 10243
From India
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Please help me as I want to prepare a PowerPoint presentation on the case law "C. Kunhikutty vs Workmen Of The Malabar Roadways on 24 June 1969". So if anyone has any PowerPoint presentation on the case law, please share.
If you have any short explanation on this case law, please connect with me at "Shaikhnadim74@gmail.com".
Thanks & Regards,
Shaikh Mohammad Nadim
Asst. Manager Industrial Relations
Mo. No. 91 89800 10243
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The 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., Supreme 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1593BENCH: DESAI, D.A., Supreme 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In 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 during employment. However, the Labour Court and the High Court stated that the driver had the quarrel after their duty time. I disagree with the 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 that ended in the evening, and he was supposed to resume his work the next day morning. The driver was on duty as he was staying there as part of his job. If something were to happen to him during that time, wouldn't the Workmen Compensation Act be applicable to him? Certainly, because he was spending his rest hours. Thus, consuming alcohol and quarrelling with a stranger are misconducts on the basis of which the employee should be dismissed.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think the case was all about the dismissal of an employee, P. Velayudhan, a driver, for his misconduct of quarreling with a stranger while the employee (driver) was off duty. It is not related to Gratuity. Please check.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.