Hi,
It is fine to know only after the reply received from the answer of respected Sri Diwakar sir. You revealed some theft done by the so-called employee. It clearly shows your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder, have you ever obtained an explanation from him about his lapses during his tenure in the parent (brother company) company?
All of a sudden, you want to show him as a liar not to pay his gratuity. You already know well all such exclusions of the Gratuity Act. You want to corner his issue to the exemptions of the duty of payment of gratuity.
At first, you want to know how to pay for which period... now you are saying... that you learnt how to hold his gratuity under the law within the framework of the Act. Kindly note that the Supreme Court judgment also supports payment of gratuity only... not to take advantage of some makeover stories.
See, this clearly shows you are happy for SCI JUDGEMENT in support of your want of holding payment of gratuity... It shows Elders say "if you want to kill a dog" say it as a Mad.
I won't believe your first query and then I read your vote of thanks notes given to this platform. Ultimately, this behavior resorts to knocking the judiciary's doors by the employee... Instead of inviting headaches... avail the noble choice to management using its intelligence... by simply closing the matter with payment of gratuity to him.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
69It is fine to know only after the reply received from the answer of respected Sri Diwakar sir. You revealed some theft done by the so-called employee. It clearly shows your intention to pay gratuity. I wonder, have you ever obtained an explanation from him about his lapses during his tenure in the parent (brother company) company?
All of a sudden, you want to show him as a liar not to pay his gratuity. You already know well all such exclusions of the Gratuity Act. You want to corner his issue to the exemptions of the duty of payment of gratuity.
At first, you want to know how to pay for which period... now you are saying... that you learnt how to hold his gratuity under the law within the framework of the Act. Kindly note that the Supreme Court judgment also supports payment of gratuity only... not to take advantage of some makeover stories.
See, this clearly shows you are happy for SCI JUDGEMENT in support of your want of holding payment of gratuity... It shows Elders say "if you want to kill a dog" say it as a Mad.
I won't believe your first query and then I read your vote of thanks notes given to this platform. Ultimately, this behavior resorts to knocking the judiciary's doors by the employee... Instead of inviting headaches... avail the noble choice to management using its intelligence... by simply closing the matter with payment of gratuity to him.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gannahope,
If you do not know both sides' stories, you should not talk about this. He is holding a few valuable assets of the company which he does not want to return. Also, he did not bring business to the company in previous years; we simply kept him in good faith.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you do not know both sides' stories, you should not talk about this. He is holding a few valuable assets of the company which he does not want to return. Also, he did not bring business to the company in previous years; we simply kept him in good faith.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Let me interfere, I don't find anything wrong in our learned member, Gannahipe, because the law permits you to forfeit an employee's gratuity only in such cases where the employee was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and that also after following the procedures of conducting an enquiry and after giving the employee all possible opportunities of defending the charges.
In the absence of an enquiry, dismissal will be illegal, and forfeiture of gratuity will also be illegal. If he demands his gratuity involving the Labour Department, you will have to pay it. If you want to get back the asset taken by him, call him and amicably settle the issue. Who knows why he took it? Sometimes, he should have taken it in lieu of some other benefits promised to him.
Regarding business loss, you should have warned him of it periodically. That was your fault; you cannot take it as a reason for holding or refusing gratuity.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the absence of an enquiry, dismissal will be illegal, and forfeiture of gratuity will also be illegal. If he demands his gratuity involving the Labour Department, you will have to pay it. If you want to get back the asset taken by him, call him and amicably settle the issue. Who knows why he took it? Sometimes, he should have taken it in lieu of some other benefits promised to him.
Regarding business loss, you should have warned him of it periodically. That was your fault; you cannot take it as a reason for holding or refusing gratuity.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ya fine. I invite comments, sir.
The only thing I felt is the asking person has not presented merits and demerits of the concerned employee. At first, he mentioned anything negative about the employee. The only thing he inquired about was how to pay the gratuity and for which period. He did not mention how to deal with the situation if the employee is a defaulter.
My plea is that long-time employees are often denied minimum benefits under labor laws. It is a well-known fact that some hundreds of crores of GPF amounts of workers remain undrawn due to the denial of certification by factories' managements.
Ill-motivated inquiries should be discouraged.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The only thing I felt is the asking person has not presented merits and demerits of the concerned employee. At first, he mentioned anything negative about the employee. The only thing he inquired about was how to pay the gratuity and for which period. He did not mention how to deal with the situation if the employee is a defaulter.
My plea is that long-time employees are often denied minimum benefits under labor laws. It is a well-known fact that some hundreds of crores of GPF amounts of workers remain undrawn due to the denial of certification by factories' managements.
Ill-motivated inquiries should be discouraged.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very true. Moreover, the manner of working of gratuity amount has not changed. Even now, we are considering the basic salary and sometimes, Dearness Allowance (which is not a component of salary for new generation companies) though the entire salary is considered for deciding the amount of salary for the day or days one has remained on leave without pay.
Every year, the employer conducts a performance appraisal. This has become a farce or mockery and is mainly carried out to decide on the salary increase. In most cases, a common letter like, "based on your performance during the last year, the management is 'pleased' to increase your 'salary'....."
Here two things require attention. First, 'performance', an employee rated performing may become underperforming in a few months when a disagreement occurs between the employee and the management. When you ask him to go, you cannot say that he is asked to go due to his performance unless you have given him an indication of his poor performance and given him time to meet the new expectations you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, i.e., basic, DA, HRA, and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a separate salary for the calculation of gratuity. Salary for the purpose of payment of gratuity shall include all components of salary as per the contract of employment. Certainly, you can exclude those allowances that are outside the salary.
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee, and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behavior is not grounds for forfeiting or denying it.
Please follow the link [Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2019/10/payment-of-gratuity-and-gratuity.html)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Every year, the employer conducts a performance appraisal. This has become a farce or mockery and is mainly carried out to decide on the salary increase. In most cases, a common letter like, "based on your performance during the last year, the management is 'pleased' to increase your 'salary'....."
Here two things require attention. First, 'performance', an employee rated performing may become underperforming in a few months when a disagreement occurs between the employee and the management. When you ask him to go, you cannot say that he is asked to go due to his performance unless you have given him an indication of his poor performance and given him time to meet the new expectations you have about him.
Second is 'salary'. Here the salary will include everything, i.e., basic, DA, HRA, and whatever is mentioned in the appointment order or the salary revision letter. You cannot have a separate salary for the calculation of gratuity. Salary for the purpose of payment of gratuity shall include all components of salary as per the contract of employment. Certainly, you can exclude those allowances that are outside the salary.
In short, Gratuity is a right of an employee, and termination of service for any reason other than moral turpitude and for the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the company by him due to his riotous behavior is not grounds for forfeiting or denying it.
Please follow the link [Madhu T K: Payment of Gratuity and Gratuity Qualifying Salary](http://madhu-t-k.blogspot.com/2019/10/payment-of-gratuity-and-gratuity.html)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
GRATUITY CAN BE WITH HELD AND FORFEITED IN CASE OF RECOVERY OF DUES - E.G. OVERSTAYING IN OFFICIAL ACCOMMODATION ETC.
Case Name : Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11025/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1347)
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court held that gratuity money of an employee can be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues such as overstaying in official accommodation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier – (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No. 4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid. Pending applications stand disposed of.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Case Name : Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11025/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 15/12/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (1347)
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs Raghbendra Singh & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court held that gratuity money of an employee can be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues such as overstaying in official accommodation.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier – (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No. 4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms aforesaid. Pending applications stand disposed of.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the cited case, there seems to be no reference to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The case is different, and in my opinion, it refers to Gratuity Regulations, 1969, the statutory provisions of which are more liberal and favorable (to the employer) than the former, i.e., Payment of Gratuity Act. Moreover, in the Gratuity Regulations, the definition of an employee is different, and it does not include 'gold color' employees.
Again, in this case, proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, have also been initiated. Therefore, I doubt whether this Supreme Court verdict will help the employer in the present case under our discussion in which the concerned employee is an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and no proceedings had been initiated against him before his leaving the company.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Again, in this case, proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, have also been initiated. Therefore, I doubt whether this Supreme Court verdict will help the employer in the present case under our discussion in which the concerned employee is an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act and no proceedings had been initiated against him before his leaving the company.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very true, but it was also reported against the employee that he is in possession of company property, and he has already left the company.
Thus, the Supreme Court judgment on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or the equivalent cash value of any company property) holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thus, the Supreme Court judgment on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues (dues can be outstanding dues or the equivalent cash value of any company property) holds good in the current case.
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
From India, Aizawl
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
He has stolen a few company records and he has taken his entire team along with company assets not returned by him, like cards, iPhones, etc.
So, what measures have been applied by the employer within time towards the recovery of the company assets? Did they file any complaint? Did they communicate with the person in a legal manner?
If yes, then the employer can proceed with criminal counsel and legal action for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery. Mere whispering to walls does not yield any results.
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
So, what measures have been applied by the employer within time towards the recovery of the company assets? Did they file any complaint? Did they communicate with the person in a legal manner?
If yes, then the employer can proceed with criminal counsel and legal action for a suitable redressal of the assets recovery. Mere whispering to walls does not yield any results.
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
True, but the amount due should be quantifiable, and that depends on the employer proving that he has sustained the specified amount of loss (sec 4(6)(a)) caused to the company. What is very important is his termination for causing loss to the company. If an employee is in possession of any asset of the company, the latter can recover it by other means, but forfeiting gratuity cannot be justifiable. Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of gratuity, I think it is advised to take it to the Appropriate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, the District Labour Officer, or Dy Commissioner, as the case may be, and deposit the amount with him. I am not sure if it will be easy for the employer to solve the issue in such cases, but the employer can try by involving the Officer.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
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.
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is mostly correct. The Supreme Court judgement on withholding or forfeiture of gratuity payment in case of recovery of dues due to company property possession is relevant. (1 Acknowledge point)