Sir, I think, in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, there is only a condition of continuous service for not less than five years. Whether the employment of said person is legal or not appears to be not an important factor. However, much will depend upon as to what are the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Whether the compensation of Rs.10 lakh may be in lieu of said Gratuity etc. Therefore,I think, the employer will also keep in view the contents of Court Orders before contemplating his claims under above Act.
From India, Noida
923From India, Noida
The episode narrated by Ranjanrajan seems quite unfortunate to both the Management and the affected individual. It is also vindicative of the legal maxim - " Justice tardive, Justice fautive " - i.e., Justice delayed is justice denied. Normally the process of appointment is a follow-up one confirming a candidate's selection after verifying all his credentials. But in the given case the officer took so much time even to seek clarification and came to the belated decison that he was not qualified and hence the termination that formed the cause of action for the entire litigation dragged for years subsequently culminating in the question of his entitlement to gratuity for the years he served. Unless the entire text of the final judgment is available, it will not be possible to give an appropriate answer to the question, as rightly observed by Mr.Harsh Kumar.
However, an answer ventured out of the philosophy behind the aspect of payment of gratuity to an employee is also possible in the special back-drop of the case. An unqualified candidate was wrongfully appointed to a post the fact of which was realised belatedly only by the Management and hence his services were terminated after three years. Of course the same was stayed by the Court immediately on the employee's appeal while the main issue was still pending.So the relief of continuation of his service was only of interim nature till the disposal of the main issue which came to the knowledge of the Management further belatedly for obvious reasons though it was favourable to them. When on further appeal by the employee, the orders of the High Court was confirmed but with a definite relief of a fixed sum of compensation to the employee. I think that there ends the matter.
My personal view, therefore, is as follows:
A)Gratuity is essentially based on two aspects - one is blemishless service and the other is a certain minimum length of service. When the very appointment itself is wrong due to lack of essential qualification, the subsequent termination of services based on such wrongful appointment would also be a declaration to the effect that the person was never appointed as such apart from extinguishing the wrong appointment as void ab initio.
B) The compensation fixed on the final orders on appeal puts an end to all claims of terminal benefits,if any.
The views other friends are solicited.
From India, Salem
However, an answer ventured out of the philosophy behind the aspect of payment of gratuity to an employee is also possible in the special back-drop of the case. An unqualified candidate was wrongfully appointed to a post the fact of which was realised belatedly only by the Management and hence his services were terminated after three years. Of course the same was stayed by the Court immediately on the employee's appeal while the main issue was still pending.So the relief of continuation of his service was only of interim nature till the disposal of the main issue which came to the knowledge of the Management further belatedly for obvious reasons though it was favourable to them. When on further appeal by the employee, the orders of the High Court was confirmed but with a definite relief of a fixed sum of compensation to the employee. I think that there ends the matter.
My personal view, therefore, is as follows:
A)Gratuity is essentially based on two aspects - one is blemishless service and the other is a certain minimum length of service. When the very appointment itself is wrong due to lack of essential qualification, the subsequent termination of services based on such wrongful appointment would also be a declaration to the effect that the person was never appointed as such apart from extinguishing the wrong appointment as void ab initio.
B) The compensation fixed on the final orders on appeal puts an end to all claims of terminal benefits,if any.
The views other friends are solicited.
From India, Salem
While appreciating the posts of Harsh and Umakanth, I would also like to take it in another angle, that, is it due to any mistake or concealment of facts on the part of the employee that he was allowed to work for such a long period or don't we find that there was negligence from the management side that the management failed to get the order of the court in time. Is it due to this negligence that the employee continued? If so, don't we say that gratuity is payable for the service that he had rendered?
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
1. Madhu T.K.Sir, thanks for appreciating my posts and views as above. Your appreciations continue to encourage me to participate in discussions in this citehr.
2. However, I may submit that as observed from various detailed judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Courts, Hon'ble courts in administrative matters like as we are discussing closes the entire dispute for future by awarding a lump-sum compensation to the aggrieved employee. Such lump-sum compensation may include all claims viz. notice pay, gratuity, leave encashment etc. etc. in respect of which the agreed employee must have made his claims in the petition. I think, the observations of Mr. Umakanthan M. appears to be important and relevant in the situation. With regards.
From India, Noida
2. However, I may submit that as observed from various detailed judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Courts, Hon'ble courts in administrative matters like as we are discussing closes the entire dispute for future by awarding a lump-sum compensation to the aggrieved employee. Such lump-sum compensation may include all claims viz. notice pay, gratuity, leave encashment etc. etc. in respect of which the agreed employee must have made his claims in the petition. I think, the observations of Mr. Umakanthan M. appears to be important and relevant in the situation. With regards.
From India, Noida
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