<?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>2020 (5) TMI 33 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395000</link>
    <description>An employee covered by the employer&#039;s gratuity scheme could not claim gratuity above the statutory ceiling by relying on Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Trust Deed and Rules stated that gratuity for covered employees would be calculated in accordance with the Act, which meant both the statutory method of computation and the ceiling under Section 4(3). Section 4(5) applies only where an award, agreement, or contract independently grants better gratuity terms. A general reference to payment under the Act does not permit selective use of the statutory rate while ignoring the cap, so the higher claim was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2020 06:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 33 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395000</link>
      <description>An employee covered by the employer&#039;s gratuity scheme could not claim gratuity above the statutory ceiling by relying on Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Trust Deed and Rules stated that gratuity for covered employees would be calculated in accordance with the Act, which meant both the statutory method of computation and the ceiling under Section 4(3). Section 4(5) applies only where an award, agreement, or contract independently grants better gratuity terms. A general reference to payment under the Act does not permit selective use of the statutory rate while ignoring the cap, so the higher claim was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>