Harpreet who said their is nothing written about 240 days in Gratuity ?
Kindly read the Act from the begining...........
Under definition of continuous service it is clearly mentioned.....
Please check first & then reply....
From India, Hyderabad
190Kindly read the Act from the begining...........
Under definition of continuous service it is clearly mentioned.....
Please check first & then reply....
From India, Hyderabad
Barring the two High Court judgements I have cited in my earlier reply, the term 240 days or 190 days, as the case may be is referred in the Payment of Gratuity Act connection with “continuity of service” or to decide whether there is any “interruption” to the service. If you peruse Lalappa Lingappa and Others Vs Lakshmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd (1981 AIR 852) which is considered to be the landmark judgement in this direction given by the Apex Court of India, we will see that the issue of 240 days/ 190 days or 75% of attendance during a season (in case of seasonal employment) comes in to picture where there is any denial of gratuity to an employee who is otherwise eligible for gratuity but in between the service there has been year or years in which he has not worked for 240 days due to reasons other than employment injury or maternity leave (in case of female employee), lay off, legal strike or other which are considered as not due to faults of employee concerned. In the said verdict it was confirmed that where any regular employee having worked for five years and thus made qualified for gratuity is having a year in which he had not worked for 240 days against that no disciplinary action was taken and his short working was not considered as break in service thereafter would be eligible for gratuity presuming that the days he remained absent were regularised.
The Act is still in support of completion of five years of continuous service to become qualified for gratuity. It is very clearly mentioned in section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act that gratuity is payable on termination of employment after rendering a service of “NOT LESS THAN” five years. It is true that 240 days in a year (190 days if working below the ground or where the company normally works for 5 days in a week) or 75% days in a season would qualify for gratuity for that year but does not mean that one who has not completed five years but rendered 4 years and 240 / 190 days in the fifth year would qualify for gratuity.
Even after the verdict of Madras High Court came, there have been instances of denial of gratuity in similar cases saying that the High Court verdict is not binding on the other states. I also understand that with the Kerala High Court also delivering the same judgement in Sreeja Vs RJLC, the appropriate authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Kerala will pronounce that 4 years and 240 days would qualify for gratuity. But the same cannot be the case with other states and they may continue to say that there has been no amendment taken place in the Payment of Gratuity Act which is still on “not less than five years’ service” for gratuity and the ruling of madras High Court or Kerala High Court would not be binding on us or unless there is a Supreme Court verdict in the similar direction we cannot accept such a claim.
I also second that a ruling made by a High Court shall be followed by other states.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
The Act is still in support of completion of five years of continuous service to become qualified for gratuity. It is very clearly mentioned in section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act that gratuity is payable on termination of employment after rendering a service of “NOT LESS THAN” five years. It is true that 240 days in a year (190 days if working below the ground or where the company normally works for 5 days in a week) or 75% days in a season would qualify for gratuity for that year but does not mean that one who has not completed five years but rendered 4 years and 240 / 190 days in the fifth year would qualify for gratuity.
Even after the verdict of Madras High Court came, there have been instances of denial of gratuity in similar cases saying that the High Court verdict is not binding on the other states. I also understand that with the Kerala High Court also delivering the same judgement in Sreeja Vs RJLC, the appropriate authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act in Kerala will pronounce that 4 years and 240 days would qualify for gratuity. But the same cannot be the case with other states and they may continue to say that there has been no amendment taken place in the Payment of Gratuity Act which is still on “not less than five years’ service” for gratuity and the ruling of madras High Court or Kerala High Court would not be binding on us or unless there is a Supreme Court verdict in the similar direction we cannot accept such a claim.
I also second that a ruling made by a High Court shall be followed by other states.
Madhu.T.K
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.
Madras HC judg regarding gratuity is applicable if workmen is working 4 years 240 days..pdf