Ya it is fine to know only after the reply received from answer of respected Sri Diwakar sir's. you revealed some theft done by so called employee.
It clearly shows to your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder Have you ever obtained 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 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 law within framework of Act.
Kindly note that supreme Court judgement 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 quiery andthen 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
68It clearly shows to your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder Have you ever obtained 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 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 law within framework of Act.
Kindly note that supreme Court judgement 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 quiery andthen 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 side's stories you should not talk about this .He is having Few valuable assets of company which he doesn't want to retune. Also he didn't give business to company in previous years we just kept him in a good faith .
From India, New Delhi
If you do not know both side's stories you should not talk about this .He is having Few valuable assets of company which he doesn't want to retune. Also he didn't give business to company in previous years we just kept him in a 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 enquiry dismissal will be illegal and forfeiture of gratuity will be illegal. If he demands his gratuity involving 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 did he take 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
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 told anything badside of the employee.. The only thing he requested how to pay the GRATUITY.. FOR WHICH PERIOD..? HE DID NOT TELL HOW TO PAY AS A DEFAULTER EMPLOYEE?..
MY PLEA IS SINCE LONGTIME EMPLOYEES ARE BADLY DENIED OF MINIMUM BENEFITS UNDER LABOUR LAWS.
I T IS WELL KNOWN FACT THAT SOME HUNDREDS CRORES OF GPF AMOUNTS OF WORKERS UNDRAWN DUE TO DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION BY FACTORIES' MANAGEMENTS ..
ILL MOTIVE ENQUIRIES 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 told anything badside of the employee.. The only thing he requested how to pay the GRATUITY.. FOR WHICH PERIOD..? HE DID NOT TELL HOW TO PAY AS A DEFAULTER EMPLOYEE?..
MY PLEA IS SINCE LONGTIME EMPLOYEES ARE BADLY DENIED OF MINIMUM BENEFITS UNDER LABOUR LAWS.
I T IS WELL KNOWN FACT THAT SOME HUNDREDS CRORES OF GPF AMOUNTS OF WORKERS UNDRAWN DUE TO DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION BY FACTORIES' MANAGEMENTS ..
ILL MOTIVE ENQUIRIES 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 of the 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 under performing 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 bad performance and is given time to perform as per the new expectations that you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, ie, basic, DA, HRA and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a salary separate for 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 which are outside the salary. Please follow the link
Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for recovery of amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behaviour is not a ground for forfeiting or denying it.
From India, Kannur
Here two things require attention. First, 'performance', an employee rated performing may become under performing 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 bad performance and is given time to perform as per the new expectations that you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, ie, basic, DA, HRA and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a salary separate for 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 which are outside the salary. Please follow the link
Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for recovery of amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behaviour is not a ground for forfeiting or denying it.
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 is more liberal and favourable (to the employer) than the former, ie, payment of Gratuity Act. Moreover, in the Gratuity Regulations the definition of employee is different and it does not include 'gold colour' employees. Again, in this case proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, has 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 Payment of Gratuity Act and no proceeding had been initiated against him before his leaving the company.
From India, Kannur
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 SC judgement on with holding or forfeiture of gratuity payment , in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or equivalent cash value of any company property), thus holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
Thus SC judgement on with holding or forfeiture of gratuity payment , in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or equivalent cash value of any company property), thus holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
@
///he has stolen few company records and he has took his entire team along also company assets not retuned by him like card ,i phones etc ///
so what measures have been applied by the employer within time, towards recovery of the company assets? did they file any complaint? did they communicated the person in legal path?
if yes then employer can go with criminal-counsel and legal way for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery,
mere whispering to walls does not give any result
///he has stolen few company records and he has took his entire team along also company assets not retuned by him like card ,i phones etc ///
so what measures have been applied by the employer within time, towards recovery of the company assets? did they file any complaint? did they communicated the person in legal path?
if yes then employer can go with criminal-counsel and legal way for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery,
mere whispering to walls does not give any result
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. But 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 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 take a try by involving the Officer.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
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.
SBT Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner- Gratuity dismissed employee-LTS.PD F
FORM I(Application for Gratuity by an employee).doc