Yes, this is a case on retrenchment and no where it is mentioned that a person who has 4 years + 240 days should be paid gratuity. The definition of continuous service may be synonymous but the application is different. The point raised by keshav Korgaonkar is very valid that if this is available in hand why the Courts of Madras and Kerala did not refer it? And that was why I had asked for a verdict from SC on this issue. In the past also when this issue came up for discussion the same case had come up, I remember. The link in post No. 9 will take you to our past discussions.
From India, Kannur
4240From India, Kannur
Dear HR Colleagues,
This issue of whether somebody who has put in 4years service and in the 5th year has completed 240 + days service can be considered to have completed 5 years' service and would make him eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the ambit of this forum. Members can express their views but until law is amended to support the above interpretation making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to drag this discussion any further as more heat than light is being generated.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR- Consultant
From India, Mumbai
This issue of whether somebody who has put in 4years service and in the 5th year has completed 240 + days service can be considered to have completed 5 years' service and would make him eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the ambit of this forum. Members can express their views but until law is amended to support the above interpretation making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to drag this discussion any further as more heat than light is being generated.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR- Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Dear Sri T. K Madhu
&
Sri Koregaonkar,
I do not have the copy of the decission of the Apex court which is very much in discussion. The quoto made by me provided with the reference of the cite down the posting.
I also made it clear in my posting that the case citation is case specific and can not be considered absolute and riding over the Act & laws in force.
I also fully agree with your opinion that, why the laws are not being ammended immidiate after the pronouncement by the apex court.
I request my learned collegue to refer this two cases(B&OCW), one is of the Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016 and other one is by the Chatishgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, order date 16/02/2018. This is just to know how the things being treated & interpreted.
With regards
From India, Mumbai
&
Sri Koregaonkar,
I do not have the copy of the decission of the Apex court which is very much in discussion. The quoto made by me provided with the reference of the cite down the posting.
I also made it clear in my posting that the case citation is case specific and can not be considered absolute and riding over the Act & laws in force.
I also fully agree with your opinion that, why the laws are not being ammended immidiate after the pronouncement by the apex court.
I request my learned collegue to refer this two cases(B&OCW), one is of the Supreme Court order in Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016 and other one is by the Chatishgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, order date 16/02/2018. This is just to know how the things being treated & interpreted.
With regards
From India, Mumbai
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.
Surendra_Kumar_ Verma_Etc_vs_Th e_Central_Gover nment_on_23_Sep tember_1980 Gratuity payable 4 years.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc