Do not use this kind of language not only here any where in any public forum.
Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly says that min 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity.
There are two exceptions to this rule:
1.In case of death of employees
2.VR or closure of the company
gratuity is payable irrespective of the period of service.
From India, Chennai
2Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly says that min 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity.
There are two exceptions to this rule:
1.In case of death of employees
2.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 (and this was 5 years back - since I left the company in 2013) - we were paying Gratuity for employees who completed 4 years 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 can pay anything more than what is given by Law. And our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law and then you can not stop or take it back.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................
From India, Mumbai
You can pay anything more than what is given by Law. And our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law and then you can not stop or take it back.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................
From India, Mumbai
This thread needs to be closed as original poster is not responding.The responses of the original poster were inappropriate and distasteful.
Professional courtesy and politeness is the hall mark 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 is the hall mark 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 
,
You said to me - "don't use this type word." I have not understood what do you mean by it.
Not because I am having ample time with me I am on this forum spending time.
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 do you mean by it.
Not because I am having ample time with me I am on this forum spending time.
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 a 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 definition of continuous service is the same in ID Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make him 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 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 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 upto 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 a 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 definition of continuous service is the same in ID Act and Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make him 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 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 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 upto 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,
Thanks for your post.
I asked some questions on this forum many times but no one came forward with answers to it.
Time being we accept that there is a Judgement of SC which says employee rendering service of 4 year 10 months 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years and Gratuity to is payable to him.
The judgement of SC was reported in 1980.
Why so far there is no amendment in the Law then?
Madras HC, the matter was decided in 1996. Kerala HC, the matter was decided in 2015. If there is a judgement of SC prior to 1996 and 2015 and it was a settled law then why the HC at Madras and HC at Kerala admitted the matter? Why HC at Madras and HC at Kerala did not mention the Judgement of SC?
I am atataching herewith a SC judgement in Surendra Kumar Varma's matter as asked by you.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for your post.
I asked some questions on this forum many times but no one came forward with answers to it.
Time being we accept that there is a Judgement of SC which says employee rendering service of 4 year 10 months 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years and Gratuity to is payable to him.
The judgement of SC was reported in 1980.
Why so far there is no amendment in the Law then?
Madras HC, the matter was decided in 1996. Kerala HC, the matter was decided in 2015. If there is a judgement of SC prior to 1996 and 2015 and it was a settled law then why the HC at Madras and HC at Kerala admitted the matter? Why HC at Madras and HC at Kerala did not mention the Judgement of SC?
I am atataching herewith a SC judgement in Surendra Kumar Varma's matter as asked by you.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Surendra_Kumar_ Verma_Etc_vs_Th e_Central_Gover nment_on_23_Sep tember_1980 Gratuity payable 4 years.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc