Apart from the above you can refer the below link to have a better understanding.
https://indiankanoon.org/search/?for...tuity+240+days
From India, Ahmadabad
734https://indiankanoon.org/search/?for...tuity+240+days
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Mr Saji
there is judgement of madras high court on a one particular case and that judgement is not have any impact on other cases .As per the act minimum 5 year service is must to become eligible for gratuity.As there is no amendment in act on the basis of judgement you can not compel employer to pay gratuity after 4 years and 240 days.
From India, Delhi
there is judgement of madras high court on a one particular case and that judgement is not have any impact on other cases .As per the act minimum 5 year service is must to become eligible for gratuity.As there is no amendment in act on the basis of judgement you can not compel employer to pay gratuity after 4 years and 240 days.
From India, Delhi
Dear Saji
as a employer we have trust & insured our gratuity through LIC and even they donot
pay gratuity to any member if service is less than 5 years than from where we pay gratuity to employee.
Various judgement comes from time to time and you can take judgement as guideline when act is not clear .here act is clear than why we should follow the judgement or
guidelines.
From India, Delhi
as a employer we have trust & insured our gratuity through LIC and even they donot
pay gratuity to any member if service is less than 5 years than from where we pay gratuity to employee.
Various judgement comes from time to time and you can take judgement as guideline when act is not clear .here act is clear than why we should follow the judgement or
guidelines.
From India, Delhi
Dear Sh. Saji,
First of all, thanks for sharing the judgement.
As Malik Sir rightly stated judgements may be viewed and referred in order to support proceedings of routine cases. But if you will look from an Employer point of view, there is no point in referring to judgements only for reaching to decision when there are clear cut guidelines provided in the Act.
Dont you think that following only judgements will oversee the provisions of the Act ? Because if only judgements are to be considered as a criteria then why victim needs to submit separate complaints in Courts. And then court gives judgements in tune to avail rights of victims.
Sometimes judgements help in understanding aspects and applicability of the Act, but they can never supersede the Act. Act is static and must be referred as primary source.
As per my understanding and previous submission on the subject, this Person will have to claim his Gratuity before Asstt. Labour Commissioner of concerned area. And in such scenario, victim may submit this case law in his support. The competent Authority will investigate it thoroughly and decide as appropriate.
Please dont take it otherwise. It is just sharing.
Regards.,
From India, Bhopal
First of all, thanks for sharing the judgement.
As Malik Sir rightly stated judgements may be viewed and referred in order to support proceedings of routine cases. But if you will look from an Employer point of view, there is no point in referring to judgements only for reaching to decision when there are clear cut guidelines provided in the Act.
Dont you think that following only judgements will oversee the provisions of the Act ? Because if only judgements are to be considered as a criteria then why victim needs to submit separate complaints in Courts. And then court gives judgements in tune to avail rights of victims.
Sometimes judgements help in understanding aspects and applicability of the Act, but they can never supersede the Act. Act is static and must be referred as primary source.
As per my understanding and previous submission on the subject, this Person will have to claim his Gratuity before Asstt. Labour Commissioner of concerned area. And in such scenario, victim may submit this case law in his support. The competent Authority will investigate it thoroughly and decide as appropriate.
Please dont take it otherwise. It is just sharing.
Regards.,
From India, Bhopal
Dear Mr. Rajesh/Malik
My point of view is the same, let the employee claim his gratuity with the competent authority, the case law can be referred to file a fresh complaint to the court of law if required. But it would be not appropriate stopping the employee to claim his right for gratuity.
My earlier posts only states that the employee should claim first, the rest can be done later. There are ample lawyers available in India, as well as in this forum too, who are competent enough to fight it legally and get the gratuity paid to the employee.
From India, Ahmadabad
My point of view is the same, let the employee claim his gratuity with the competent authority, the case law can be referred to file a fresh complaint to the court of law if required. But it would be not appropriate stopping the employee to claim his right for gratuity.
My earlier posts only states that the employee should claim first, the rest can be done later. There are ample lawyers available in India, as well as in this forum too, who are competent enough to fight it legally and get the gratuity paid to the employee.
From India, Ahmadabad
Dear Cite HR readers, Mentioned below the extracts of Supreme Court of India rulings on Gratuity payable to an employee who has completed the service of 4 years and 240 working days in 5th year of service. This has been from a good samaritan for the viewers of Cite HR.
Clarity between gratuity eligibility service (5 or 4.8 yrs)?
The gratuity eligibility service as per Gratuity Act 1972 is 5 years.
But as per the judgment from Supreme Court below and the quotation from the book quoted below it seems that the gratuity eligibility service is 4 years 240 days.
"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 10 months 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity."
Quotation from the book:
Law Book (Bare Act,2004) i.e. The Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 (Publisher: Law Publishers () Pvt. Ltd., 18A-S.P.Marg, Post Box - 1077, Allahabad - 211001. Phone: 623735, 623741 Fax-0532-622276.website: lawpublishersindia.com
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
Doj 1.05.2000 -
01.05.2000 to 30.04.2001 - worked for 190 days
01.05.2001 to 30.04.2002 - worked for 190days
If we go by the above formula and if the person does not have any break in service he will be eligible for gratuity on 01.11.2004 "
Non clarity of this rule has created confusion among a lot of employees. As some hear that some companies are following the 4 years 240 days rule, while some follow the 5 year rule. Please help remove this confusion so that nobody rights of gratuity are being compromised on. Expert Lawyer may please give his comments and advice. .
From India, New Delhi
Clarity between gratuity eligibility service (5 or 4.8 yrs)?
The gratuity eligibility service as per Gratuity Act 1972 is 5 years.
But as per the judgment from Supreme Court below and the quotation from the book quoted below it seems that the gratuity eligibility service is 4 years 240 days.
"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 10 months 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity."
Quotation from the book:
Law Book (Bare Act,2004) i.e. The Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 (Publisher: Law Publishers () Pvt. Ltd., 18A-S.P.Marg, Post Box - 1077, Allahabad - 211001. Phone: 623735, 623741 Fax-0532-622276.website: lawpublishersindia.com
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
Doj 1.05.2000 -
01.05.2000 to 30.04.2001 - worked for 190 days
01.05.2001 to 30.04.2002 - worked for 190days
If we go by the above formula and if the person does not have any break in service he will be eligible for gratuity on 01.11.2004 "
Non clarity of this rule has created confusion among a lot of employees. As some hear that some companies are following the 4 years 240 days rule, while some follow the 5 year rule. Please help remove this confusion so that nobody rights of gratuity are being compromised on. Expert Lawyer may please give his comments and advice. .
From India, New Delhi
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.
FORM-F-NOMINATI ON OF GRATUITY.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc