Yes, this is a case on retrenchment and nowhere is it 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. If this is available in hand, why did the Courts of Madras and Kerala not refer to it? That is why I had asked for a verdict from the Supreme Court on this issue. In the past, when this issue came up for discussion, the same case had been brought up, I remember. The link in post No. 9 will take you to our past discussions.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4479From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear HR Colleagues,
The issue of whether somebody who has completed 4 years of service and in the 5th year has served 240+ days can be considered to have completed 5 years of service and thus be eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the scope of this forum. Members can express their views, but until the law is amended to support the above interpretation, making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to prolong this discussion as it is generating more heat than light.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue of whether somebody who has completed 4 years of service and in the 5th year has served 240+ days can be considered to have completed 5 years of service and thus be eligible for gratuity under the Gratuity Act is not within the scope of this forum. Members can express their views, but until the law is amended to support the above interpretation, making an employee eligible for gratuity, it is pointless to prolong this discussion as it is generating more heat than light.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sri T. K. Madhu and Sri Koregaonkar,
I do not have a copy of the decision of the Apex court which is currently under discussion. The quote provided by me includes a reference to the citation at the end of the post. I also clarified in my post that the case citation is specific to the case and cannot be considered absolute or superior to the Acts and laws in force.
I fully agree with your opinion on why the laws are not immediately amended after a pronouncement by the apex court. I urge my learned colleagues to refer to these two cases (B&OCW): one from the Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016, and the other from the Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, dated 16/02/2018. This is to understand how things are being handled and interpreted.
With regards,
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not have a copy of the decision of the Apex court which is currently under discussion. The quote provided by me includes a reference to the citation at the end of the post. I also clarified in my post that the case citation is specific to the case and cannot be considered absolute or superior to the Acts and laws in force.
I fully agree with your opinion on why the laws are not immediately amended after a pronouncement by the apex court. I urge my learned colleagues to refer to these two cases (B&OCW): one from the Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 6223 of 2016, and the other from the Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Bench WPC-2636 of 2010, dated 16/02/2018. This is to understand how things are being handled and interpreted.
With regards,
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.