https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108952 Statutory gratuity cannot be denied or withheld on the ground that an employee continued to occupy the employer's quarter after cessation of service, because such occupation is an extraneous factor and not a lawful basis to defeat a terminal benefit. The appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was said to have exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the controlling authority on that basis. Pendency of proceedings before the BIFR did not attract section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to bar release of a gratuity amount already deposited by the employer, since the writ proceeding was not one for recovery or execution against the company's assets. The deposited gratuity was directed to be released in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108952 Statutory gratuity cannot be denied or withheld on the ground that an employee continued to occupy the employer's quarter after cessation of service, because such occupation is an extraneous factor and not a lawful basis to defeat a terminal benefit. The appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was said to have exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the controlling authority on that basis. Pendency of proceedings before the BIFR did not attract section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to bar release of a gratuity amount already deposited by the employer, since the writ proceeding was not one for recovery or execution against the company's assets. The deposited gratuity was directed to be released in accordance with law. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108952