<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (6) TMI 507 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184077</link>
    <description>Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 preserves better gratuity terms under a contract, award or agreement, but only as part of the contractual package as a whole. The doctrine of severance or blue pencil cannot be used to extract the higher contractual rate while simultaneously claiming the statutory ceiling. A workman must elect either the contractual gratuity scheme or the statutory scheme; selective combination of the two is not permitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 507 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184077</link>
      <description>Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 preserves better gratuity terms under a contract, award or agreement, but only as part of the contractual package as a whole. The doctrine of severance or blue pencil cannot be used to extract the higher contractual rate while simultaneously claiming the statutory ceiling. A workman must elect either the contractual gratuity scheme or the statutory scheme; selective combination of the two is not permitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184077</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>