Do not use this kind of language, not only here but anywhere in any public forum.
Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly states that a minimum of 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity. There are two exceptions to this rule:
1. In the case of death of employees.
2. Voluntary Retirement (VR) or closure of the company.
Gratuity is payable irrespective of the period of service.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2Relating to your query, you are not eligible as the act very clearly states that a minimum of 5 years of service is required to be eligible for gratuity. There are two exceptions to this rule:
1. In the case of death of employees.
2. Voluntary Retirement (VR) or closure of the company.
Gratuity is payable irrespective of the period of service.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry, I was working for a software firm in Bangalore, and as far as I know (this was 5 years ago - since I left the company in 2013), we were providing gratuity for employees who completed 4 years and 10 months or thereabouts. Is there any dispute about this?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mita Hemant ji,
You cannot pay anything more than what is given by law. Our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law, and then you cannot stop or take it back.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You cannot pay anything more than what is given by law. Our learned member Ravindranath rightly said that once you pay, it becomes a law, and then you cannot stop or take it back.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This thread needs to be closed as the original poster is not responding. The responses of the original poster were inappropriate and distasteful.
Professional courtesy and politeness are the hallmarks 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Professional courtesy and politeness are the hallmarks 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chandra
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Punit1459@Gmail.Com,
You said to me - "don't use this type word." I have not understood what you mean by it. Not because I have ample time with me, I am spending time on this forum. 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You said to me - "don't use this type word." I have not understood what you mean by it. Not because I have ample time with me, I am spending time on this forum. 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Prabhat,
Can you please share the 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 the definition of continuous service is the same in the ID Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make them 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 the 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 the 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 up to 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Can you please share the 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 the definition of continuous service is the same in the ID Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act. But that is not disputed. What is disputed is whether a person should complete 5 years in order to make them 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 the 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 the 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 up to 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Madhu ji,
Thank you for your post. I have asked several questions on this forum, but unfortunately, no one has come forward with answers yet.
For now, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Court judgment stating that an employee who has served for 4 years, 10 months, and 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years of service, making them eligible for Gratuity. This SC judgment dates back to 1980.
I am curious as to why there have been no amendments to the law regarding this matter since then. It is interesting to note that the Madras High Court ruled on this issue in 1996, while the Kerala High Court did so in 2015. If there was already a settled law based on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, why did the High Courts in Madras and Kerala entertain the matter? Furthermore, why did they not reference the Supreme Court's judgment in their decisions?
I am attaching the Supreme Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Varma's case, as you requested.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your post. I have asked several questions on this forum, but unfortunately, no one has come forward with answers yet.
For now, we acknowledge that there is a Supreme Court judgment stating that an employee who has served for 4 years, 10 months, and 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years of service, making them eligible for Gratuity. This SC judgment dates back to 1980.
I am curious as to why there have been no amendments to the law regarding this matter since then. It is interesting to note that the Madras High Court ruled on this issue in 1996, while the Kerala High Court did so in 2015. If there was already a settled law based on the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, why did the High Courts in Madras and Kerala entertain the matter? Furthermore, why did they not reference the Supreme Court's judgment in their decisions?
I am attaching the Supreme Court judgment in Surendra Kumar Varma's case, as you requested.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.