Hooghly Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs Anandi Rajak & Ors on 4 March, 2025

0
73

1. The present writ application has been filed praying for direction

upon the respondents not to give further effect orders dated

18.05.2016 and 31.05.2024, passed by the Controlling Authority

and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972.

2. The petitioner’s case is in short is that the Respondent No. 1 was

engaged in Petitioner Company as a Badli worker on 07.03.1976.

Page 2

The Respondent No.1 got his provident fund membership only

on 04.11.1981. The Respondent No.1 attained his age of

superannuation on 06.08.2009 as Badli itself. Throughout this

period i.e., 07.03.1976 to 06.08.2009 the respondent no.1

worked as badli employee i.e., in place and stead of permanent

employees, who are absent for any reason whatsoever. The

certified standing orders of the company authorizes the company

to engage ‘badli’ workman as substitute of a permanent

workman who used to be on leave or absent i.e., during

temporary vacancy caused by absenteeism.

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here