Please review the corrected version below:
---
Please go through the blog for clarity.
[HR SUCCESS TALK: 13 facts one should know about Gratuity Act in India!!](http://hrsuccesstalk.blogspot.in/2013/03/13-facts-one-should-know-about-gratuity.html)
---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and formatting errors in the text provided.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3---
Please go through the blog for clarity.
[HR SUCCESS TALK: 13 facts one should know about Gratuity Act in India!!](http://hrsuccesstalk.blogspot.in/2013/03/13-facts-one-should-know-about-gratuity.html)
---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and formatting errors in the text provided.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have seen most of the replies. I expected an analysis of the term "Continuous Service" in PGA and the deeming proviso to that definition. It appears that Gratuity is payable only when 5 years of service are completed. However, if you consider the definition of "continuous service," it allows you to claim gratuity upon completion of 4 years and 240 days in the fifth year. This means that 4 years and 8 months of service are sufficient to claim Gratuity. This interpretation is irrespective of the judgment of the Chennai High Court.
In the case at hand, there is a service of 4 years and 10 months. Hence, there should not be any difficulty in claiming Gratuity. 5 years of service, in actual terms, amounts to 4 years and 240 days only.
This interpretation is applicable nationwide and not restricted to the state of Tamil Nadu alone.
Adv. K. H. Kulkarni.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the case at hand, there is a service of 4 years and 10 months. Hence, there should not be any difficulty in claiming Gratuity. 5 years of service, in actual terms, amounts to 4 years and 240 days only.
This interpretation is applicable nationwide and not restricted to the state of Tamil Nadu alone.
Adv. K. H. Kulkarni.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friends,
As you all know, this subject is one of the few matters discussed in this forum repeatedly. Again and again, the same points are raised by different schools of thought: one in favor and the other against. In my view, the stance taken by those who don't advocate for 4 years and 240 days is a pessimistic one, rather than based on irrefutable sound legal provisions. I am saying this based on the Supreme Court's judgment regarding what constitutes "continuous service," i.e., 240 days. According to this judgment, it would be sufficient if an employee completes 240 days of "continuous service" each year. Therefore, there should not be a different treatment for the 5th year, as it is the terminal year. Completing 4 years and 240 days in the 5th year should automatically qualify for the minimum gratuity under the Gratuity Act. I have not come across any judgments where gratuity is legally denied for those who have not completed the full 5 years of service. I fully support the views of Adv. K.H. Kulkarni and sympathize with those who do not understand this concept.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As you all know, this subject is one of the few matters discussed in this forum repeatedly. Again and again, the same points are raised by different schools of thought: one in favor and the other against. In my view, the stance taken by those who don't advocate for 4 years and 240 days is a pessimistic one, rather than based on irrefutable sound legal provisions. I am saying this based on the Supreme Court's judgment regarding what constitutes "continuous service," i.e., 240 days. According to this judgment, it would be sufficient if an employee completes 240 days of "continuous service" each year. Therefore, there should not be a different treatment for the 5th year, as it is the terminal year. Completing 4 years and 240 days in the 5th year should automatically qualify for the minimum gratuity under the Gratuity Act. I have not come across any judgments where gratuity is legally denied for those who have not completed the full 5 years of service. I fully support the views of Adv. K.H. Kulkarni and sympathize with those who do not understand this concept.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
He is eligible if he present 240 days in a fifth year.means 4 year and 240 days. In that case he is eligible for gratuity.
From India, Gandhinagar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gandhinagar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Bhaskar,
Please read the judgment shared by Mr. Sujeet of the Madras High Court, which is binding on the state of Tamil Nadu. Honorable Justice Abdul Wahab clearly stated that a person who had been in the service of an organization for 240 days or more in the fifth year is eligible for gratuity. If you read the judgment closely, you will find that the person who claimed gratuity in the case was neither terminated nor died but resigned. Hence, there is no question of a short period waiver. Moreover, there is no such thing. Mr. Deepak's friend's case is exactly the same as the attached judgment. Even here in Delhi, you can claim gratuity by applying the same principle given under the Madras High Court judgment on the subject. Referring to Chennai, it has a binding effect, and Mr. Deepak's friend is entirely entitled to gratuity even if he resigned. If a company is managing its trust, it cannot make its own rules to govern the trust. It can give more but not less than what is prescribed under the Act.
I would request you to give it another consideration in the light of the attached judgment. In my opinion, he is entitled to gratuity.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please read the judgment shared by Mr. Sujeet of the Madras High Court, which is binding on the state of Tamil Nadu. Honorable Justice Abdul Wahab clearly stated that a person who had been in the service of an organization for 240 days or more in the fifth year is eligible for gratuity. If you read the judgment closely, you will find that the person who claimed gratuity in the case was neither terminated nor died but resigned. Hence, there is no question of a short period waiver. Moreover, there is no such thing. Mr. Deepak's friend's case is exactly the same as the attached judgment. Even here in Delhi, you can claim gratuity by applying the same principle given under the Madras High Court judgment on the subject. Referring to Chennai, it has a binding effect, and Mr. Deepak's friend is entirely entitled to gratuity even if he resigned. If a company is managing its trust, it cannot make its own rules to govern the trust. It can give more but not less than what is prescribed under the Act.
I would request you to give it another consideration in the light of the attached judgment. In my opinion, he is entitled to gratuity.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think Deepak is eligible for the gratuity.as per my knowledge mr Deepak must claim as tod by boss.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir, I am 100 percent sure that the person is eligible for gratuity as few days back one employee from my company resigned with same situation and I myself have handed over the cheque from lic trust.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In addition to above members i also agree that the concern person is eligible for payment of gratuity in all respect. Thanks & Regards, From, Sumit Kumar Saxena
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ghaziabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Gratuity has to be paid after employee quits (TOI - 27-03-2021)_1.j pg
FORM-F-NOMINATI ON OF GRATUITY.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc