Dear Team Members,
One of the Workers joined our employment on 1.1.2018 & we confirmed his services on 1.7.2018. Due to misconduct, we suspended him & kept him under pending inquiry. w.e.f. 11.10.2021.
Inquiry completed & Terminated him from employment on 7.10.2022. Subsistence allowance was paid to him from 11.10.2021 to 6.7.2022
Total Actual work performed service is 3 yrs 9 months & 1 week.
Total Service ( including the suspended period ) 4 yrs 9 months & 6 days.
Is he eligible for gratuity?
Regards,
Snitu
From India, Pune
4One of the Workers joined our employment on 1.1.2018 & we confirmed his services on 1.7.2018. Due to misconduct, we suspended him & kept him under pending inquiry. w.e.f. 11.10.2021.
Inquiry completed & Terminated him from employment on 7.10.2022. Subsistence allowance was paid to him from 11.10.2021 to 6.7.2022
Total Actual work performed service is 3 yrs 9 months & 1 week.
Total Service ( including the suspended period ) 4 yrs 9 months & 6 days.
Is he eligible for gratuity?
Regards,
Snitu
From India, Pune
Hi, As per Act Gratuity will applicable if the member completed continuous service of 5 years period. Hence not eligible.
From India, Madras
From India, Madras
Dear Snitu,
Suspension pending enquiry does not snatch away the employer-employee relationship and as such the period of suspension should be taken into account for computing continuous service under the PG Act,1972 unless it is treated punitive as permitted in the service rules or the contract of employment. Therefore, the delinquent employee is eligible to claim gratuity as he had completed 04 years, 09 months and 06 days of continuous service on the date of his dismissal.
However, if the dismissal was on account of the proven behavioral issues mentioned u/s 4 (6) of the Act and a show cause notice has been issued to the effect accordingly, his gratuity can be forfeited fully.
From India, Salem
Suspension pending enquiry does not snatch away the employer-employee relationship and as such the period of suspension should be taken into account for computing continuous service under the PG Act,1972 unless it is treated punitive as permitted in the service rules or the contract of employment. Therefore, the delinquent employee is eligible to claim gratuity as he had completed 04 years, 09 months and 06 days of continuous service on the date of his dismissal.
However, if the dismissal was on account of the proven behavioral issues mentioned u/s 4 (6) of the Act and a show cause notice has been issued to the effect accordingly, his gratuity can be forfeited fully.
From India, Salem
Noted with Thanks, Sir
Even though, a few clarifications awaited.
(the delinquent employee is eligible to claim gratuity as he had completed 04 years, 09 months and 06 days of continuous service on the date of his dismissal.)
As per the ID Act 1947 25 B.
for the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workmen has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-
1] he has been laid -off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946(20 0f 1946), or under this act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment.
2]he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years,
3]he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and
4]in the case of female, -------
Section 22 of gratuity act 1972
According to Section – 2A(2), an employee, who is not in continuous service as per Section 2A (1), shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year or six months, if the said employee has actually worked for not less than 240 days or 120 days respectively and for this purpose the following are to be included.
Hence, considering the above sections of the ID Act & Gratuity Act.
Shall we consider his suspended days for calculations of 240 days ?
Regards,
Snitu
From India, Pune
Even though, a few clarifications awaited.
(the delinquent employee is eligible to claim gratuity as he had completed 04 years, 09 months and 06 days of continuous service on the date of his dismissal.)
As per the ID Act 1947 25 B.
for the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workmen has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-
1] he has been laid -off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946(20 0f 1946), or under this act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment.
2]he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years,
3]he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and
4]in the case of female, -------
Section 22 of gratuity act 1972
According to Section – 2A(2), an employee, who is not in continuous service as per Section 2A (1), shall be deemed to be in continuous service for one year or six months, if the said employee has actually worked for not less than 240 days or 120 days respectively and for this purpose the following are to be included.
Hence, considering the above sections of the ID Act & Gratuity Act.
Shall we consider his suspended days for calculations of 240 days ?
Regards,
Snitu
From India, Pune
Suspension does not end the employer-employee relationship, the suspended person continues to be an employee and the employer for certain reasons is keeping the employee away from the work situation. Such an employee continues to be on the rolls and has various rights. So the period of suspension counts as continuous service and the employee thus becomes eligible for gratuity. I fully endorse the opinion of learned Umakanthan Sir to this effect.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Snitu,
I think that the reply of Mr.KK!HR reiterating my point will enhance your understanding of the concept of " continuous service " both u/s 25-B of the IDA,1947 and u/s 2-A of the PGA,1972.
The phrase " actually worked " occurring in Sec.2-A(1) of the Act should not be interpreted to merely mean physically working with hammer or pen. On the contrary, it will also include the act of abstinence on the part of the employee from doing work at the instance of the employer. Suspension is the formal and discretionary act of the employer temporarily preventing the employee from attending to his work. Moreover, an order of dismissal cannot be retrospective. Therefore, the entire period of suspension undergone by the employee whose services are subsequently terminated should be treated as actually worked in view of the subsistence of the contract of employment.
From India, Salem
I think that the reply of Mr.KK!HR reiterating my point will enhance your understanding of the concept of " continuous service " both u/s 25-B of the IDA,1947 and u/s 2-A of the PGA,1972.
The phrase " actually worked " occurring in Sec.2-A(1) of the Act should not be interpreted to merely mean physically working with hammer or pen. On the contrary, it will also include the act of abstinence on the part of the employee from doing work at the instance of the employer. Suspension is the formal and discretionary act of the employer temporarily preventing the employee from attending to his work. Moreover, an order of dismissal cannot be retrospective. Therefore, the entire period of suspension undergone by the employee whose services are subsequently terminated should be treated as actually worked in view of the subsistence of the contract of employment.
From India, Salem
In this particular case, the total service rendered is 4 years 9 months, and 6 days undisputedly for calculating the gratuity. Since he has not completed 5 years of continuous service, he is not eligible for gratuity. There is some diverse interpretation based on the Madras HC judgment, but that is a particular case and it does not mean that the normal practice of 5 years has deviated.
Dr Kamlesh Agrawal
Mumbai
From India, Delhi
Dr Kamlesh Agrawal
Mumbai
From India, Delhi
Sorry Dr.Kamlesh to differ with you on the interpretation of the applicability of the ratio decidendi of a particular High Court beyond its territorial jurisdiction in respect of a question of law and fact like "continuous service" u/s 2-A of the PG Act,1972 not decided by anyother High Court or the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, though generally such a decision rendered by the High Court of a particular State is not binding beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it has got a persuasive value in respect of the question decided in the absence of any contrary decision by any other High Court or the Supreme Court particularly when the Act is a Central legislation and every High Court is also a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
In this regard I would like to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court while interpreting section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is in pari materia with section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972. As far as the method of calculating 240 days for the purpose of sec.25-B(2) is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the matter of MOHAN LAL Vs. BHARAT ELECTRONICS Ltd., ( AIR 1981 SC 1253 ) has held:
" ..... Section 25(B)(2) comprehends a situation where a workman is not in employment of 12 calendar months but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous Service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and Chapter V-A."
Though not actually quoted, the ratio decidendi of the Madras High Court in METTUR BEARDSEL Ltd vs. REGIONAL LABOR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) (1998 LLR 372 ) is certainly in conformity with the law enunciated in the above case. However, the hon'ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SURENDRAKUMAR VERMA v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOR COURT, NEW DELHI ( 1980 -4- SCC - 433 ) wherein the Court has categorically stated that it is sufficient for the purpose of S.25-B(2)(a)(ii) that the employee has actually worked for not less than 240 days and that it is no longer necessary for a workman to show that he has been in employment during a preceding period of 12 calendar months in order to qualify within the terms of section 25-B.
Therefore, my considered opinion is that it is sufficient that if an employee works for not less than 190 days or 240 days as the case may be in the establishment in his fifth year of service, he shall be deemed to have completed not less than 5 years of continuous Service to claim gratuity under the Act.
From India, Salem
In my opinion, though generally such a decision rendered by the High Court of a particular State is not binding beyond its territorial jurisdiction, it has got a persuasive value in respect of the question decided in the absence of any contrary decision by any other High Court or the Supreme Court particularly when the Act is a Central legislation and every High Court is also a Court of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.
In this regard I would like to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court while interpreting section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which is in pari materia with section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972. As far as the method of calculating 240 days for the purpose of sec.25-B(2) is concerned, the Supreme Court, in the matter of MOHAN LAL Vs. BHARAT ELECTRONICS Ltd., ( AIR 1981 SC 1253 ) has held:
" ..... Section 25(B)(2) comprehends a situation where a workman is not in employment of 12 calendar months but has rendered service for a period of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date i.e., the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be deemed to be in continuous Service for a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B and Chapter V-A."
Though not actually quoted, the ratio decidendi of the Madras High Court in METTUR BEARDSEL Ltd vs. REGIONAL LABOR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) (1998 LLR 372 ) is certainly in conformity with the law enunciated in the above case. However, the hon'ble High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SURENDRAKUMAR VERMA v. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOR COURT, NEW DELHI ( 1980 -4- SCC - 433 ) wherein the Court has categorically stated that it is sufficient for the purpose of S.25-B(2)(a)(ii) that the employee has actually worked for not less than 240 days and that it is no longer necessary for a workman to show that he has been in employment during a preceding period of 12 calendar months in order to qualify within the terms of section 25-B.
Therefore, my considered opinion is that it is sufficient that if an employee works for not less than 190 days or 240 days as the case may be in the establishment in his fifth year of service, he shall be deemed to have completed not less than 5 years of continuous Service to claim gratuity under the Act.
From India, Salem
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Gratuity Eligibility.pdf
Gratuity eligibility for less than 5 yrs. (4yrs.240days). docx