https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183618 The Court dismissed the petition challenging the order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, affirming that the respondent, despite the 'Director' title, was an employee entitled to gratuity due to continuous service and lack of management control. The Authorities' decision was upheld, emphasizing the respondent's eligibility as an employee under the Act's definitions. The Court differentiated the case from a Supreme Court ruling on the Factories Act, highlighting the respondent's employment status based on control over management. The petitioner's contentions were rejected, and the judgment clarified the correctness of the Authorities' findings. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:58:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183618 The Court dismissed the petition challenging the order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, affirming that the respondent, despite the 'Director' title, was an employee entitled to gratuity due to continuous service and lack of management control. The Authorities' decision was upheld, emphasizing the respondent's eligibility as an employee under the Act's definitions. The Court differentiated the case from a Supreme Court ruling on the Factories Act, highlighting the respondent's employment status based on control over management. The petitioner's contentions were rejected, and the judgment clarified the correctness of the Authorities' findings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183618