Dear Hotgautam,
Your further explanation clearly brings out the fact that the employee who was a casual labour for some time earlier did not work for 190 days in any subsequent year even after his confirmation so as to claim gratuity. Hence you contend that he is not entitled to gratuity as he had not rendered continuous service of 190 days in any year even after his confirmation.
The interruptions mentioned wherever in the body of the sec.2-A of the PG Act,1972 for the deeming purpose of the entire stretch of service as continuous service presupposes the factum of continuity or regularity of employment not so as to snap the employer-employee relationship.
In the case of casual employment, there are no chances for such ocassional interruptions to be deemed as non-interruptions as it is a need-based or contigental engagement only in which case the entitlement to gratuity would arise only if the no of days actually worked is not less than the minimum limit fixed.
On the contrary, after confirmation of such a casual labour, the very nature of his employment becomes regular so as to attract the otherwise interruptions to make good the short fall, if any, in computing the no of actual days worked for the purpose of gratuity for that period. Had he failed to make it not less than 190 by his unauthorised absence, why the employer too failed to pass an order treating the absence as break in service becomes a valid question.
Therefore, your contention seems untenable to me based on the above reasoning.
From India, Salem
6018Your further explanation clearly brings out the fact that the employee who was a casual labour for some time earlier did not work for 190 days in any subsequent year even after his confirmation so as to claim gratuity. Hence you contend that he is not entitled to gratuity as he had not rendered continuous service of 190 days in any year even after his confirmation.
The interruptions mentioned wherever in the body of the sec.2-A of the PG Act,1972 for the deeming purpose of the entire stretch of service as continuous service presupposes the factum of continuity or regularity of employment not so as to snap the employer-employee relationship.
In the case of casual employment, there are no chances for such ocassional interruptions to be deemed as non-interruptions as it is a need-based or contigental engagement only in which case the entitlement to gratuity would arise only if the no of days actually worked is not less than the minimum limit fixed.
On the contrary, after confirmation of such a casual labour, the very nature of his employment becomes regular so as to attract the otherwise interruptions to make good the short fall, if any, in computing the no of actual days worked for the purpose of gratuity for that period. Had he failed to make it not less than 190 by his unauthorised absence, why the employer too failed to pass an order treating the absence as break in service becomes a valid question.
Therefore, your contention seems untenable to me based on the above reasoning.
From India, Salem
Thanks Umakanthan Sir,
Yes, the onus lies on the management for keeping on the roll of company an employee with chronic habit of absenteeism but gratuity is a reward for unblemished service which may include completion 190 days attendance in a year for claiming gratuity for that year. However, in our company we pay gratuity to the regular employees for the year in which they do not fulfill the criteria of 190 days attendance also subject to not getting any letter confirming their absence as break in service. The only negative against the employee in question is that he was appointed as casual and remained casual throughout his employment period till he superannuated. I want to ask you once again Sir, whether he is eligible for getting gratuity in the eyes of law.
Regards
Gautam
From India, Pune
Yes, the onus lies on the management for keeping on the roll of company an employee with chronic habit of absenteeism but gratuity is a reward for unblemished service which may include completion 190 days attendance in a year for claiming gratuity for that year. However, in our company we pay gratuity to the regular employees for the year in which they do not fulfill the criteria of 190 days attendance also subject to not getting any letter confirming their absence as break in service. The only negative against the employee in question is that he was appointed as casual and remained casual throughout his employment period till he superannuated. I want to ask you once again Sir, whether he is eligible for getting gratuity in the eyes of law.
Regards
Gautam
From India, Pune
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.
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & The Rules.ppt
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972.doc