https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766570 Gratuity remained a statutory employee entitlement and was not to be diluted by the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Court held that gratuity, like provident fund and pension fund amounts, falls outside the liquidation estate, and the absence of a separately maintained gratuity fund did not defeat the claim. It further noted that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has overriding effect, so the existence of a resolution plan did not bar recovery. The controlling authority also had jurisdiction to determine the gratuity claim and award interest, as the company had not ceased to exist by liquidation. The writ petition therefore failed and the gratuity order was sustained. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Feb 2025 08:23:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766570 Gratuity remained a statutory employee entitlement and was not to be diluted by the corporate insolvency resolution process. The Court held that gratuity, like provident fund and pension fund amounts, falls outside the liquidation estate, and the absence of a separately maintained gratuity fund did not defeat the claim. It further noted that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has overriding effect, so the existence of a resolution plan did not bar recovery. The controlling authority also had jurisdiction to determine the gratuity claim and award interest, as the company had not ceased to exist by liquidation. The writ petition therefore failed and the gratuity order was sustained. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766570