employer liability - The Legal Chamber

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Retired AFC Employees Win Supreme Court Battle for Higher Gratuity Payout

The Supreme Court held that under the AFC’s Staff Regulations, the gratuity ceiling for employees is linked to notifications issued by the State Government. Consequently, AFC employees are entitled to the enhanced gratuity limit prescribed by the Government of Assam, as the regulations incorporate such external ceilings for employee benefit. Facts Of The Case: The Assam Financial Corporation Limited (AFC) appealed against a High Court judgment favouring its retired employees. The employees, who retired between 2018–2019, had been paid gratuity under AFC’s internal regulations, which had a ceiling of Rs. 7 lakhs as per a 2012 office order. They contended that they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was aligned with the enhanced...

Supreme Court Rules Insurance Company Liable for Worker Compensation Alongside Employer

The Supreme Court held that under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, an insurer can be made a party and held jointly and severally liable for compensation if the employer's liability is covered by the insurance policy. The Court clarified that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to determine the liability of the insurer, ensuring the workman's remedy is effective and not illusory. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by a workman (the second respondent), who was employed as a driver by the appellant, Alok Kumar Ghosh. The workman suffered a disabling injury due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He filed for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against both his employer (the appellant) and The New In...

Merely Producing a Licence is Not Collusion, Rules Supreme Court, Protecting Owners from Insurer’s Recovery

The Supreme Court held that merely proving a driver’s licence is fake does not absolve the insurer unless it is established that the vehicle owner knowingly breached the duty of due diligence in employing the driver. Absent proof of such breach, the insurer remains liable to third parties and cannot recover from the owner under a “pay and recover” order. Facts Of The Case: The accident occurred on January 26, 1993, at 2:00 AM at an intersection, involving a collision between a truck and a Matador van. The Matador van was carrying ten passengers, including the driver. Tragically, nine persons lost their lives in the accident, while two sustained injuries. Claims were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the injured and the legal heirs of the deceased passengers, as wel...