I joined a PSU on 2nd September 2013 and am now shifting to a private organization. My last working day in the PSU is 15th June 2018. The total working period in the PSU is 4 years, 9 months, and 13 days. Am I eligible for Gratuity? My illiterate HR personnel are saying that 5 years are required. Kindly help; it's urgent.
From India, Ludhiana
From India, Ludhiana
Dear Vivekcorporate1990,
On this forum, most of the literate HR people will give an answer in your favor. However, your less literate HR colleagues are also correct. In your case, 5 years of completed service is required unless you fall under the jurisdiction of Madras HC or Kerala HC.
I apologize for responding in your language.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................................
From India, Mumbai
On this forum, most of the literate HR people will give an answer in your favor. However, your less literate HR colleagues are also correct. In your case, 5 years of completed service is required unless you fall under the jurisdiction of Madras HC or Kerala HC.
I apologize for responding in your language.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................................
From India, Mumbai
Professional courtesy demands that wordings like "illiterate HR" be eschewed in a forum like this dedicated to improving HR knowledge and practices. The law states that 5 years of continuous service with 240 days worked in the last year of service are required for gratuity eligibility.
Many individuals are relying on a single Madras court judgment to assume that even if you have less than 5 years of service, you automatically qualify for gratuity. However, in my opinion, you are not entitled to gratuity.
Kindly note that it is essential to adhere to the legal requirements and not base assumptions on singular court rulings.
From India, Pune
Many individuals are relying on a single Madras court judgment to assume that even if you have less than 5 years of service, you automatically qualify for gratuity. However, in my opinion, you are not entitled to gratuity.
Kindly note that it is essential to adhere to the legal requirements and not base assumptions on singular court rulings.
From India, Pune
Mr. Keshav,
Whoever, despite knowing the rules or being ignorant, harasses an employee is deemed to be called illiterate. Kindly buy a dictionary to understand the meaning of illustrate.
Secondly, kindly do not share misinformation on threads if you do not have complete information and misguide. There is a Supreme Court judgment in this regard. So, don't restrict it to the Madras High Court.
I hope you understand it in your language.
From India, Ludhiana
Whoever, despite knowing the rules or being ignorant, harasses an employee is deemed to be called illiterate. Kindly buy a dictionary to understand the meaning of illustrate.
Secondly, kindly do not share misinformation on threads if you do not have complete information and misguide. There is a Supreme Court judgment in this regard. So, don't restrict it to the Madras High Court.
I hope you understand it in your language.
From India, Ludhiana
Respected Vivekcorporate1990,
When our learned member Nathrao expressly said that professional courtesy demands that wordings like "Illiterate HR" be eschewed in a forum like this dedicated to improving HR knowledge and practices, I need not go for buying a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word you express or expressed.
With due respect to you, Sir, I would advise you to kindly read and interpret the Supreme Court Judgment. You can even read my comments on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in my various posts. I do not wish to repeat it here once again.
Now the question is on misleading. Corporates have paid me charges for giving a legal opinion on this issue of Gratuity. I am here on this forum with more than 2400 posts responding to the queries of members honorarily like others just because of sharing knowledge and in turn gaining too from people like you.
I have given 64 lectures up till now on various Labour Laws to various Corporates and HR professionals across the industry, apart from lecturing in College. However, no one told me that I misguided at any time.
I always appreciate that one can have a different view or a different perception of any issue. But it should be supported with appropriate justification.
You are free to stand by your own view/perception and get your due right from the court of law.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Advocate High Court Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
When our learned member Nathrao expressly said that professional courtesy demands that wordings like "Illiterate HR" be eschewed in a forum like this dedicated to improving HR knowledge and practices, I need not go for buying a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word you express or expressed.
With due respect to you, Sir, I would advise you to kindly read and interpret the Supreme Court Judgment. You can even read my comments on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in my various posts. I do not wish to repeat it here once again.
Now the question is on misleading. Corporates have paid me charges for giving a legal opinion on this issue of Gratuity. I am here on this forum with more than 2400 posts responding to the queries of members honorarily like others just because of sharing knowledge and in turn gaining too from people like you.
I have given 64 lectures up till now on various Labour Laws to various Corporates and HR professionals across the industry, apart from lecturing in College. However, no one told me that I misguided at any time.
I always appreciate that one can have a different view or a different perception of any issue. But it should be supported with appropriate justification.
You are free to stand by your own view/perception and get your due right from the court of law.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Advocate High Court Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Sir,
I have gone through multiple forums, and each one has unanimously stated that if a person has served 240 days in the fourth year, he is eligible for gratuity. I haven't found any of your posts on the same.
Also, the word "illiterate" HR was not used for the HR community but for 4-5 HR officials working in my corporation who are actually illiterate and just luckily got promoted from the steno level. Hope that clarifies.
From India, Ludhiana
I have gone through multiple forums, and each one has unanimously stated that if a person has served 240 days in the fourth year, he is eligible for gratuity. I haven't found any of your posts on the same.
Also, the word "illiterate" HR was not used for the HR community but for 4-5 HR officials working in my corporation who are actually illiterate and just luckily got promoted from the steno level. Hope that clarifies.
From India, Ludhiana
Dear Vivek,
There are conflicting opinions about 240 days of service in the last year. The issue is still different. This being a public and professional forum, your words such as "illiterate HR" and kindly do not "shit" on threads if you do not have complete information and misguide are highly inappropriate. Courtesy demands that such words are not used. I leave it to your good sense now.
From India, Pune
There are conflicting opinions about 240 days of service in the last year. The issue is still different. This being a public and professional forum, your words such as "illiterate HR" and kindly do not "shit" on threads if you do not have complete information and misguide are highly inappropriate. Courtesy demands that such words are not used. I leave it to your good sense now.
From India, Pune
Dear Keshav Jee,
I would be highly obliged if you could share the link to your threads about the Supreme Court judgment interpretation on Gratuity and your comments on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in your various posts. I need it for my academic interest.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
I would be highly obliged if you could share the link to your threads about the Supreme Court judgment interpretation on Gratuity and your comments on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in your various posts. I need it for my academic interest.
Regards,
From India, Mumbai
Dear Azim ji,
With due respect to you as well as other members, I do not wish to discuss more on this topic. There are different views on this topic, and I have expressed my views with appropriate support many times on this forum. I am providing only one link to you below to help you form your stance on the subject matter:
https://www.citehr.com/108564-sc-jud...-download.html
From India, Mumbai
With due respect to you as well as other members, I do not wish to discuss more on this topic. There are different views on this topic, and I have expressed my views with appropriate support many times on this forum. I am providing only one link to you below to help you form your stance on the subject matter:
https://www.citehr.com/108564-sc-jud...-download.html
From India, Mumbai
Dear Vivek,
The learned HR members in this forum have expressed and shared their knowledge of law and interpretation on the eligibility for gratuity. The Apex court judgment may strengthen your case if you fight it out in the court of law. However, since the service eligibility of five years has not been amended in the Gratuity Act, the same will apply, and on that basis, the refusal by your HR to pay you gratuity is not wrong.
You seem to be expressing your anger over the refusal of gratuity by your HR to the members of this respectable forum unnecessarily and have used ungentlemanly language, which you should not have. You should express your apology, and if you don't, stop seeking free advice.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The learned HR members in this forum have expressed and shared their knowledge of law and interpretation on the eligibility for gratuity. The Apex court judgment may strengthen your case if you fight it out in the court of law. However, since the service eligibility of five years has not been amended in the Gratuity Act, the same will apply, and on that basis, the refusal by your HR to pay you gratuity is not wrong.
You seem to be expressing your anger over the refusal of gratuity by your HR to the members of this respectable forum unnecessarily and have used ungentlemanly language, which you should not have. You should express your apology, and if you don't, stop seeking free advice.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Do not use this kind of language, not only here but anywhere in any public forum.
Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly states that a minimum of 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity. There are two exceptions to this rule:
1. In the case of death of employees.
2. Voluntary Retirement (VR) or closure of the company.
Gratuity is payable irrespective of the period of service.
From India, Chennai
Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly states that a minimum of 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity. There are two exceptions to this rule:
1. In the case of death of employees.
2. Voluntary Retirement (VR) or closure of the company.
Gratuity is payable irrespective of the period of service.
From India, Chennai
Sorry, I was working for a software firm in Bangalore, and as far as I know (this was 5 years ago - since I left the company in 2013), we were providing gratuity for employees who completed 4 years and 10 months or thereabouts. Is there any dispute about this?
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
As per the act not payable, company can have different rules, but once paid for an employee it will be difficult to withdraw as it becomes a rule for the company.
From India, Chennai
From India, Chennai
Dear Mita Hemant ji,
You cannot pay anything more than what is given by law. Our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law, and then you cannot stop or take it back.
From India, Mumbai
You cannot pay anything more than what is given by law. Our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law, and then you cannot stop or take it back.
From India, Mumbai
This thread needs to be closed as the original poster is not responding. The responses of the original poster were inappropriate and distasteful.
Professional courtesy and politeness are the hallmarks of any HR or other employee. Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you. Not because they are nice, but because you are.
From India, Pune
Professional courtesy and politeness are the hallmarks of any HR or other employee. Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you. Not because they are nice, but because you are.
From India, Pune
Dear Keshav As per Gratuity Act 240 Days Mean actual Working Days Not your Total Working Days.and don’t use this type word.
From India, Chandra
From India, Chandra
Dear Punit1459@Gmail.Com,
You said to me - "don't use this type word." I have not understood what you mean by it. Not because I have ample time with me, I am spending time on this forum. Probably my exposure to IR/HR/Legal is more than double your age. However, I never claim that I am superior. I am always willing to learn from even a person like you.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Advocate High Court Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
You said to me - "don't use this type word." I have not understood what you mean by it. Not because I have ample time with me, I am spending time on this forum. Probably my exposure to IR/HR/Legal is more than double your age. However, I never claim that I am superior. I am always willing to learn from even a person like you.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Advocate High Court Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friend,
No one can even say he is completely correct. Over the period there are several judgements came ins respect to interprete the "defination". Amazingly, several rulings came but are different. Where as there could have been one "Decission".
In absence of information with some one can not be called illiterate or treat as foolish. The case citation is different and can not binding for everyone, unless untill considered absolute or considered as the inherent part of the Act.
In my opinion, you should challenge the matter in the court against the decission of your past employer as they did not consider your case is fit for gratuity.
"Judgment from Supreme Court: "Yes, by virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal,[(1980) (4) S.C.C.433)], it is enough that an employee has a service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months and it is not necessary that he should have completed one whole year’s service. As the definition of continuous service in Industrial Dispute Act and Payment of Gratuity Act are synonymous, the same principal can be adopted under the act also and hence an employee rendering service of 4 year 10months 11days is considered to have completed 5 years continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity."
[1.] 4 years and 6 months (190 days = 1 year) where the company follows 5 day a week.
[2.] 4 years and 8 months ( 240 days = 1 year) where the company follows 5 day a week. Is eligible for gratuity.The payment of gratuity ( second amendment) act, 1984 clarifies this. One needs to calculate the no of years and service completion as follows. A company which follows 5 day week
Read more at: Clarity between gratuity eligibility service (5 or 4.8 yrs)? - Gratuity - Labour & Service Law
Read more at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/foru...ween-gratuity-
From India, Mumbai
No one can even say he is completely correct. Over the period there are several judgements came ins respect to interprete the "defination". Amazingly, several rulings came but are different. Where as there could have been one "Decission".
In absence of information with some one can not be called illiterate or treat as foolish. The case citation is different and can not binding for everyone, unless untill considered absolute or considered as the inherent part of the Act.
In my opinion, you should challenge the matter in the court against the decission of your past employer as they did not consider your case is fit for gratuity.
"Judgment from Supreme Court: "Yes, by virtue of the judgment of Supreme Court rendered under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal,[(1980) (4) S.C.C.433)], it is enough that an employee has a service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months and it is not necessary that he should have completed one whole year’s service. As the definition of continuous service in Industrial Dispute Act and Payment of Gratuity Act are synonymous, the same principal can be adopted under the act also and hence an employee rendering service of 4 year 10months 11days is considered to have completed 5 years continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity."
[1.] 4 years and 6 months (190 days = 1 year) where the company follows 5 day a week.
[2.] 4 years and 8 months ( 240 days = 1 year) where the company follows 5 day a week. Is eligible for gratuity.The payment of gratuity ( second amendment) act, 1984 clarifies this. One needs to calculate the no of years and service completion as follows. A company which follows 5 day week
Read more at: Clarity between gratuity eligibility service (5 or 4.8 yrs)? - Gratuity - Labour & Service Law
Read more at: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/foru...ween-gratuity-
From India, Mumbai
Dear Prabhat,
Can you please share the full text of the Supreme Court verdict which states that 240 days in the fifth year would make an employee entitled to gratuity? Is the quoted one pertaining to Gratuity? You have stated that the definition of continuous service is the same in the ID Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make them eligible for gratuity. It is okay that 240/190 days in a year will constitute continuous service, but that does not mean that without completing 5 years a person can demand gratuity.
The Madras High Court ruling and the Kerala High Court ruling can be quoted as a direction to pay gratuity to an employee who has not completed 5 years but has completed 240 days in the fifth year. But that direction cannot be taken as a common ruling in the absence of an amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, if an illiterate HR person has said that the thread starter, Vivekcorporate, is not eligible for gratuity, he should have said that based on what is written in the Act. Now it is up to Vivekcorporate to file a complaint before the appropriate authority and get it. At that time, he can certainly say that there is a law which says that 240 days in the fifth year make an employee entitled to gratuity, etc.
If anybody has a copy of the Supreme Court verdict, please share it here so that we can take it as a common direction applicable to all establishments in India.
From India, Kannur
Can you please share the full text of the Supreme Court verdict which states that 240 days in the fifth year would make an employee entitled to gratuity? Is the quoted one pertaining to Gratuity? You have stated that the definition of continuous service is the same in the ID Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make them eligible for gratuity. It is okay that 240/190 days in a year will constitute continuous service, but that does not mean that without completing 5 years a person can demand gratuity.
The Madras High Court ruling and the Kerala High Court ruling can be quoted as a direction to pay gratuity to an employee who has not completed 5 years but has completed 240 days in the fifth year. But that direction cannot be taken as a common ruling in the absence of an amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore, if an illiterate HR person has said that the thread starter, Vivekcorporate, is not eligible for gratuity, he should have said that based on what is written in the Act. Now it is up to Vivekcorporate to file a complaint before the appropriate authority and get it. At that time, he can certainly say that there is a law which says that 240 days in the fifth year make an employee entitled to gratuity, etc.
If anybody has a copy of the Supreme Court verdict, please share it here so that we can take it as a common direction applicable to all establishments in India.
From India, Kannur
Dear Madhu ji,
Thank you for your post. I have asked several questions on this forum, but unfortunately, no one has come forward with answers yet.
For now, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Court judgment stating that an employee who has served for 4 years, 10 months, and 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years of service, making them eligible for Gratuity. This SC judgment dates back to 1980.
I am curious as to why there have been no amendments to the law regarding this matter since then. It is interesting to note that the Madras High Court ruled on this issue in 1996, while the Kerala High Court did so in 2015. If there was already a settled law based on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, why did the High Courts in Madras and Kerala entertain the matter? Furthermore, why did they not reference the Supreme Court's judgment in their decisions?
I am attaching the Supreme Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Varma's case, as you requested.
From India, Mumbai
Thank you for your post. I have asked several questions on this forum, but unfortunately, no one has come forward with answers yet.
For now, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Court judgment stating that an employee who has served for 4 years, 10 months, and 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years of service, making them eligible for Gratuity. This SC judgment dates back to 1980.
I am curious as to why there have been no amendments to the law regarding this matter since then. It is interesting to note that the Madras High Court ruled on this issue in 1996, while the Kerala High Court did so in 2015. If there was already a settled law based on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, why did the High Courts in Madras and Kerala entertain the matter? Furthermore, why did they not reference the Supreme Court's judgment in their decisions?
I am attaching the Supreme Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Varma's case, as you requested.
From India, Mumbai
Yes, this is a case on retrenchment and nowhere is it mentioned that a person who has 4 years + 240 days should be paid gratuity. The definition of continuous service may be synonymous but the application is different. The point raised by Keshav Korgaonkar is very valid. If this is available in hand, why did the Courts of Madras and Kerala not refer to it? That is why I had asked for a verdict from the Supreme Court on this issue. In the past, when this issue came up for discussion, the same case had been brought up, I remember. The link in post No. 9 will take you to our past discussions.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Dear HR Colleagues,
The issue of whether somebody who has completed 4 years of service and in the 5th year has served 240+ days can be considered to have completed 5 years of service and thus be eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the scope of this forum. Members can express their views, but until the law is amended to support the above interpretation, making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to prolong this discussion as it is generating more heat than light.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The issue of whether somebody who has completed 4 years of service and in the 5th year has served 240+ days can be considered to have completed 5 years of service and thus be eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the scope of this forum. Members can express their views, but until the law is amended to support the above interpretation, making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to prolong this discussion as it is generating more heat than light.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Dear Sri T. K. Madhu and Sri Koregaonkar,
I do not have a copy of the decision of the Apex court which is currently under discussion. The quote provided by me includes a reference to the citation at the end of the post. I also clarified in my post that the case citation is specific to the case and cannot be considered absolute or superior to the Acts and laws in force.
I fully agree with your opinion on why the laws are not immediately amended after a pronouncement by the apex court. I urge my learned colleagues to refer to these two cases (B&OCW): one from the Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016, and the other from the Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, dated 16/02/2018. This is to understand how things are being handled and interpreted.
With regards,
From India, Mumbai
I do not have a copy of the decision of the Apex court which is currently under discussion. The quote provided by me includes a reference to the citation at the end of the post. I also clarified in my post that the case citation is specific to the case and cannot be considered absolute or superior to the Acts and laws in force.
I fully agree with your opinion on why the laws are not immediately amended after a pronouncement by the apex court. I urge my learned colleagues to refer to these two cases (B&OCW): one from the Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016, and the other from the Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, dated 16/02/2018. This is to understand how things are being handled and interpreted.
With regards,
From India, Mumbai
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.