Dear Team,
We had an employee whose joining date for the 1st company was 01 July 1999, and he got transferred to our sister concern company on 01 May 2013 (2nd company). However, we did not provide him with a transfer letter, and he has finally left on 30 Jan 2021. He did not claim his gratuity from the first company during these years. Now, could you please suggest whether we need to calculate the gratuity from 1999 to 2021, or if we can disregard the gratuity from the previous company?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
2We had an employee whose joining date for the 1st company was 01 July 1999, and he got transferred to our sister concern company on 01 May 2013 (2nd company). However, we did not provide him with a transfer letter, and he has finally left on 30 Jan 2021. He did not claim his gratuity from the first company during these years. Now, could you please suggest whether we need to calculate the gratuity from 1999 to 2021, or if we can disregard the gratuity from the previous company?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Dear Archi1993,
While doing the inter-company transfer of the employee within the group, your company should have been thoughtful of the legal consequences. The thoughtfulness includes guiding the employee on the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The second company, while taking an employee on board, could have guided the employee to claim the gratuity from the previous company. A timely settlement claim would not have required this post to be raised.
Many employees do not give due importance to their rights as an employee. This could be out of trust toward the employer and also because of the lack of awareness. Nevertheless, employers cannot take undue advantage of either or both.
The second part of the last sentence of your post is a little shocking. You have written, "Now could you please suggest, do we need to calculate gratuity from 1999 to 2021, or can we leave that previous company gratuity." If you wish to wash your hands of the payment of gratuity from 1999 to 2013 to an employee who has served 22 years in the group, then it is outrageous.
If you wish, then your company may raise the internal debit note to the previous company and claim for the gratuity from 1999 to 2013. However, make sure that the employee gets his dues from 1999.
If you just pay gratuity to him from 2013 to 2021 and take solace from the fulfillment of the provisions of the Payment Gratuity Act, the employee might have to run from pillar to post to get his gratuity from 1999 to 2013. However, it will send a wrong signal to all other employees. They may perceive that long service means nothing to the employer. The reputation of the company in their eyes could come down. Are you prepared to take that risk?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
While doing the inter-company transfer of the employee within the group, your company should have been thoughtful of the legal consequences. The thoughtfulness includes guiding the employee on the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The second company, while taking an employee on board, could have guided the employee to claim the gratuity from the previous company. A timely settlement claim would not have required this post to be raised.
Many employees do not give due importance to their rights as an employee. This could be out of trust toward the employer and also because of the lack of awareness. Nevertheless, employers cannot take undue advantage of either or both.
The second part of the last sentence of your post is a little shocking. You have written, "Now could you please suggest, do we need to calculate gratuity from 1999 to 2021, or can we leave that previous company gratuity." If you wish to wash your hands of the payment of gratuity from 1999 to 2013 to an employee who has served 22 years in the group, then it is outrageous.
If you wish, then your company may raise the internal debit note to the previous company and claim for the gratuity from 1999 to 2013. However, make sure that the employee gets his dues from 1999.
If you just pay gratuity to him from 2013 to 2021 and take solace from the fulfillment of the provisions of the Payment Gratuity Act, the employee might have to run from pillar to post to get his gratuity from 1999 to 2013. However, it will send a wrong signal to all other employees. They may perceive that long service means nothing to the employer. The reputation of the company in their eyes could come down. Are you prepared to take that risk?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your reply. However, I would like to bring to your attention that he has stolen a few company records and has taken his entire team along with him. Additionally, company assets such as cards, iPhones, etc., have not been returned by him. Please suggest what to do.
From India, New Delhi
Thank you so much for your reply. However, I would like to bring to your attention that he has stolen a few company records and has taken his entire team along with him. Additionally, company assets such as cards, iPhones, etc., have not been returned by him. Please suggest what to do.
From India, New Delhi
Dear Archi1993,
The payment of gratuity and the fraud/theft at the workplace are two independent things. There is no need to establish a relation between the two. If the employee has stolen the company's assets, then did you order the domestic enquiry? Did you ask the employee to depose before the enquiry? If the culpability of the employee is established, then you can tell the employee to refund the amount of the stolen goods itself. If the employee does not do that, then you can file a police complaint.
However, you can do all this provided you have material evidence of the employee possessing the company's assets. Have you maintained the meticulous records to prove that certain goods are transferred to the employee? Do you have tax invoices of the assets that the company owns? For conducting the domestic enquiry or for filing a police complaint, two vital documents are proof of the ownership of assets i.e. tax invoice and loan card signed by the employee.
Notwithstanding the fraud or theft committed by the employee, the employee is eligible to claim the gratuity. The gratuity can be withheld provided the employee has been involved in the action of moral turpitude. Not returning the company's goods is not a severe offense that can fall under moral turpitude.
While leaving the employment, if the senior employee has taken his entire team with him, then it shows the team's allegiance to him. The incident demonstrates your company's failure to develop the loyalty of the staff to the company. Rather the senior employee ensured that the staff owes allegiance to him. These things happen when overall the administration is person-centric rather than organization-centric. If the employees from the department resign from the company where the senior employee worked, then they have done it out of their volition. It is not misconduct either by the senior employee or his teammates.
Anyway, your leadership has a lesson to learn from the incident.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
The payment of gratuity and the fraud/theft at the workplace are two independent things. There is no need to establish a relation between the two. If the employee has stolen the company's assets, then did you order the domestic enquiry? Did you ask the employee to depose before the enquiry? If the culpability of the employee is established, then you can tell the employee to refund the amount of the stolen goods itself. If the employee does not do that, then you can file a police complaint.
However, you can do all this provided you have material evidence of the employee possessing the company's assets. Have you maintained the meticulous records to prove that certain goods are transferred to the employee? Do you have tax invoices of the assets that the company owns? For conducting the domestic enquiry or for filing a police complaint, two vital documents are proof of the ownership of assets i.e. tax invoice and loan card signed by the employee.
Notwithstanding the fraud or theft committed by the employee, the employee is eligible to claim the gratuity. The gratuity can be withheld provided the employee has been involved in the action of moral turpitude. Not returning the company's goods is not a severe offense that can fall under moral turpitude.
While leaving the employment, if the senior employee has taken his entire team with him, then it shows the team's allegiance to him. The incident demonstrates your company's failure to develop the loyalty of the staff to the company. Rather the senior employee ensured that the staff owes allegiance to him. These things happen when overall the administration is person-centric rather than organization-centric. If the employees from the department resign from the company where the senior employee worked, then they have done it out of their volition. It is not misconduct either by the senior employee or his teammates.
Anyway, your leadership has a lesson to learn from the incident.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear Madam,
The fact is that no transfer order was issued containing terms of transfer. The question is, should the service put in the former sister company be treated as continuous for the purpose of gratuity? It is possible to take the view that the entire service in both sister companies be treated as continuous. Or, treat the service in the first sister company as ended from the date of transfer and also treat it as fresh employment. But in either case, since he has completed more than five years of service, he is eligible and entitled to gratuity from both sister companies.
Mixing the issue of misconduct with gratuity is unjustified and should be handled independently of each other, having regard to due process of disciplinary actions as per the law.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The fact is that no transfer order was issued containing terms of transfer. The question is, should the service put in the former sister company be treated as continuous for the purpose of gratuity? It is possible to take the view that the entire service in both sister companies be treated as continuous. Or, treat the service in the first sister company as ended from the date of transfer and also treat it as fresh employment. But in either case, since he has completed more than five years of service, he is eligible and entitled to gratuity from both sister companies.
Mixing the issue of misconduct with gratuity is unjustified and should be handled independently of each other, having regard to due process of disciplinary actions as per the law.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-[The user reply correctly states that the employee is eligible for gratuity from both sister companies due to completion of more than five years of service. Mixing misconduct issues with gratuity is unjustified. The service in both sister companies can be treated as continuous for gratuity purposes.] (1 Acknowledge point)
For coverage of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the establishments under one management or different units where financial integrality or interdependency is available will be treated as one. Therefore, even if you have not issued a transfer order with treatment of previous service, his service will be treated as continuous. As such, you cannot ignore the previous service.
In an arrangement where there is no transfer order available, the employee will be in a more comfortable position because in the absence of any written communication, his service with the second company under the same management will be considered as a work arrangement. Who credits his salary is irrelevant here.
From India, Kannur
In an arrangement where there is no transfer order available, the employee will be in a more comfortable position because in the absence of any written communication, his service with the second company under the same management will be considered as a work arrangement. Who credits his salary is irrelevant here.
From India, Kannur
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is [B]correct[/B] based on the Payment of Gratuity Act. Continuous service is considered under the same management even without a transfer order. (1 Acknowledge point)
Hello all,
EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO FORFEITURE
Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act permits an employer to forfeit gratuity payable to an employee in certain circumstances. As per the said provision:
- The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission, or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.
- The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offense involving moral turpitude, provided that such offense is committed by him in the course of his employment.
From India, Bengaluru
EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO FORFEITURE
Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act permits an employer to forfeit gratuity payable to an employee in certain circumstances. As per the said provision:
- The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission, or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.
- The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offense involving moral turpitude, provided that such offense is committed by him in the course of his employment.
From India, Bengaluru
Very recent judgement by Supreme Court of India - Employer is empowered to hold back gratuity payment, on termination of services of any employee - except on medical grounds.
From India, Aizawl
From India, Aizawl
Hi there,
Your query is good, sir. However, the facts have not yet been revealed; they seem to be suppressed. How can one say the employee has been transferred from the first company to the sister company when no such orders have been given? It is crystal clear, as per your words, that he left your company on a certain date.
If it is an open secret known to all, it is your primary responsibility to pay his rightful gratuity. It could also be understood by anyone reading this query that you are willingly avoiding paying his gratuity. You seem to be making a fake attempt to evade your minimum responsibility of paying his gratuity.
Now, let's come straight to the point - in any case, you have to pay his gratuity without any doubts. Please proceed, sir. No one can stop you from making the payment of his gratuity.
Thank you.
From India, Nellore
Your query is good, sir. However, the facts have not yet been revealed; they seem to be suppressed. How can one say the employee has been transferred from the first company to the sister company when no such orders have been given? It is crystal clear, as per your words, that he left your company on a certain date.
If it is an open secret known to all, it is your primary responsibility to pay his rightful gratuity. It could also be understood by anyone reading this query that you are willingly avoiding paying his gratuity. You seem to be making a fake attempt to evade your minimum responsibility of paying his gratuity.
Now, let's come straight to the point - in any case, you have to pay his gratuity without any doubts. Please proceed, sir. No one can stop you from making the payment of his gratuity.
Thank you.
From India, Nellore
Hi,
It is fine to know only after the reply received from the answer of respected Sri Diwakar sir. You revealed some theft done by the so-called employee. It clearly shows your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder, have you ever obtained an explanation from him about his lapses during his tenure in the parent (brother company) company?
All of a sudden, you want to show him as a liar not to pay his gratuity. You already know well all such exclusions of the Gratuity Act. You want to corner his issue to the exemptions of the duty of payment of gratuity.
At first, you want to know how to pay for which period... now you are saying... that you learnt how to hold his gratuity under the law within the framework of the Act. Kindly note that the Supreme Court judgment also supports payment of gratuity only... not to take advantage of some makeover stories.
See, this clearly shows you are happy for SCI JUDGEMENT in support of your want of holding payment of gratuity... It shows Elders say "if you want to kill a dog" say it as a Mad.
I won't believe your first query and then I read your vote of thanks notes given to this platform. Ultimately, this behavior resorts to knocking the judiciary's doors by the employee... Instead of inviting headaches... avail the noble choice to management using its intelligence... by simply closing the matter with payment of gratuity to him.
From India, Nellore
It is fine to know only after the reply received from the answer of respected Sri Diwakar sir. You revealed some theft done by the so-called employee. It clearly shows your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder, have you ever obtained an explanation from him about his lapses during his tenure in the parent (brother company) company?
All of a sudden, you want to show him as a liar not to pay his gratuity. You already know well all such exclusions of the Gratuity Act. You want to corner his issue to the exemptions of the duty of payment of gratuity.
At first, you want to know how to pay for which period... now you are saying... that you learnt how to hold his gratuity under the law within the framework of the Act. Kindly note that the Supreme Court judgment also supports payment of gratuity only... not to take advantage of some makeover stories.
See, this clearly shows you are happy for SCI JUDGEMENT in support of your want of holding payment of gratuity... It shows Elders say "if you want to kill a dog" say it as a Mad.
I won't believe your first query and then I read your vote of thanks notes given to this platform. Ultimately, this behavior resorts to knocking the judiciary's doors by the employee... Instead of inviting headaches... avail the noble choice to management using its intelligence... by simply closing the matter with payment of gratuity to him.
From India, Nellore
Dear Gannahope,
If you do not know both sides' stories, you should not talk about this. He is holding a few valuable assets of the company which he does not want to return. Also, he did not bring business to the company in previous years; we simply kept him in good faith.
From India, New Delhi
If you do not know both sides' stories, you should not talk about this. He is holding a few valuable assets of the company which he does not want to return. Also, he did not bring business to the company in previous years; we simply kept him in good faith.
From India, New Delhi
Let me interfere, I don't find anything wrong in our learned member, Gannahipe, because the law permits you to forfeit an employee's gratuity only in such cases where the employee was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and that also after following the procedures of conducting an enquiry and after giving the employee all possible opportunities of defending the charges.
In the absence of an enquiry, dismissal will be illegal, and forfeiture of gratuity will also be illegal. If he demands his gratuity involving the Labour Department, you will have to pay it. If you want to get back the asset taken by him, call him and amicably settle the issue. Who knows why he took it? Sometimes, he should have taken it in lieu of some other benefits promised to him.
Regarding business loss, you should have warned him of it periodically. That was your fault; you cannot take it as a reason for holding or refusing gratuity.
From India, Kannur
In the absence of an enquiry, dismissal will be illegal, and forfeiture of gratuity will also be illegal. If he demands his gratuity involving the Labour Department, you will have to pay it. If you want to get back the asset taken by him, call him and amicably settle the issue. Who knows why he took it? Sometimes, he should have taken it in lieu of some other benefits promised to him.
Regarding business loss, you should have warned him of it periodically. That was your fault; you cannot take it as a reason for holding or refusing gratuity.
From India, Kannur
Ya fine. I invite comments, sir.
The only thing I felt is the asking person has not presented merits and demerits of the concerned employee. At first, he mentioned anything negative about the employee. The only thing he inquired about was how to pay the gratuity and for which period. He did not mention how to deal with the situation if the employee is a defaulter.
My plea is that long-time employees are often denied minimum benefits under labor laws. It is a well-known fact that some hundreds of crores of GPF amounts of workers remain undrawn due to the denial of certification by factories' managements.
Ill-motivated inquiries should be discouraged.
From India, Nellore
The only thing I felt is the asking person has not presented merits and demerits of the concerned employee. At first, he mentioned anything negative about the employee. The only thing he inquired about was how to pay the gratuity and for which period. He did not mention how to deal with the situation if the employee is a defaulter.
My plea is that long-time employees are often denied minimum benefits under labor laws. It is a well-known fact that some hundreds of crores of GPF amounts of workers remain undrawn due to the denial of certification by factories' managements.
Ill-motivated inquiries should be discouraged.
From India, Nellore
Very true. Moreover, the manner of working of gratuity amount has not changed. Even now, we are considering the basic salary and sometimes, Dearness Allowance (which is not a component of salary for new generation companies) though the entire salary is considered for deciding the amount of salary for the day or days one has remained on leave without pay.
Every year, the employer conducts a performance appraisal. This has become a farce or mockery and is mainly carried out to decide on the salary increase. In most cases, a common letter like, "based on your performance during the last year, the management is 'pleased' to increase your 'salary'....."
Here two things require attention. First, 'performance', an employee rated performing may become underperforming in a few months when a disagreement occurs between the employee and the management. When you ask him to go, you cannot say that he is asked to go due to his performance unless you have given him an indication of his poor performance and given him time to meet the new expectations you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, i.e., basic, DA, HRA, and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a separate salary for the calculation of gratuity. Salary for the purpose of payment of gratuity shall include all components of salary as per the contract of employment. Certainly, you can exclude those allowances that are outside the salary.
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee, and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behavior is not grounds for forfeiting or denying it.
Please follow the link [Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2019/10/payment-of-gratuity-and-gratuity.html)
From India, Kannur
Every year, the employer conducts a performance appraisal. This has become a farce or mockery and is mainly carried out to decide on the salary increase. In most cases, a common letter like, "based on your performance during the last year, the management is 'pleased' to increase your 'salary'....."
Here two things require attention. First, 'performance', an employee rated performing may become underperforming in a few months when a disagreement occurs between the employee and the management. When you ask him to go, you cannot say that he is asked to go due to his performance unless you have given him an indication of his poor performance and given him time to meet the new expectations you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, i.e., basic, DA, HRA, and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a separate salary for the calculation of gratuity. Salary for the purpose of payment of gratuity shall include all components of salary as per the contract of employment. Certainly, you can exclude those allowances that are outside the salary.
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee, and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behavior is not grounds for forfeiting or denying it.
Please follow the link [Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2019/10/payment-of-gratuity-and-gratuity.html)
From India, Kannur
GRATUITY CAN BE WITH HELD AND FORFEITED IN CASE OF RECOVERY OF DUES - E.G. OVERSTAYING IN OFFICIAL ACCOMMODATION ETC.
Case Name : Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11025/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1347)
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court held that gratuity money of an employee can be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues such as overstaying in official accommodation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier – (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No. 4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid. Pending applications stand disposed of.
From India, Aizawl
Case Name : Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11025/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1347)
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court held that gratuity money of an employee can be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues such as overstaying in official accommodation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier – (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No. 4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid. Pending applications stand disposed of.
From India, Aizawl
In the cited case, there seems to be no reference to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The case is different, and in my opinion, it refers to Gratuity Regulations, 1969, the statutory provisions of which are more liberal and favorable (to the employer) than the former, i.e., Payment of Gratuity Act. Moreover, in the Gratuity Regulations, the definition of an employee is different, and it does not include 'gold color' employees.
Again, in this case, proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, have also been initiated. Therefore, I doubt whether this Supreme Court verdict will help the employer in the present case under our discussion in which the concerned employee is an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and no proceedings had been initiated against him before his leaving the company.
From India, Kannur
Again, in this case, proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, have also been initiated. Therefore, I doubt whether this Supreme Court verdict will help the employer in the present case under our discussion in which the concerned employee is an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and no proceedings had been initiated against him before his leaving the company.
From India, Kannur
Very true, but it was also reported against the employee that he is in possession of company property, and he has already left the company.
Thus, the Supreme Court judgment on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or the equivalent cash value of any company property) holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
Thus, the Supreme Court judgment on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or the equivalent cash value of any company property) holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is mostly correct. The Supreme Court judgement on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues due to company property possession is relevant. (1 Acknowledge point)
He has stolen a few company records and he has taken his entire team along with company assets not returned by him, like cards, iPhones, etc.
So, what measures have been applied by the employer within time towards the recovery of the company assets? Did they file any complaint? Did they communicate with the person in a legal manner?
If yes, then the employer can proceed with criminal counsel and legal action for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery. Mere whispering to walls does not yield any results.
So, what measures have been applied by the employer within time towards the recovery of the company assets? Did they file any complaint? Did they communicate with the person in a legal manner?
If yes, then the employer can proceed with criminal counsel and legal action for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery. Mere whispering to walls does not yield any results.
True, but the amount due should be quantifiable, and that depends on the employer proving that he has sustained the specified amount of loss (sec 4(6)(a)) caused to the company. What is very important is his termination for causing loss to the company. If an employee is in possession of any asset of the company, the latter can recover it by other means, but forfeiting gratuity cannot be justifiable. Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of gratuity, I think it is advised to take it to the Appropriate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the District Labour Officer, or Dy Commissioner, as the case may be, and deposit the amount with him. I am not sure if it will be easy for the employer to solve the issue in such cases, but the employer can try by involving the Officer.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
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.
GRATUITY Calculator for Central Govt & Private Concern only.xls
PF Online Transfer.pdf
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user's reply is correct and provides sound advice on the payment of gratuity and the importance of honoring employees' rights. Well done! (1 Acknowledge point)