Dear sir,
i had a problem in gratuity , as one of the employer has resigned in company , as per the chennai high court decision Gratuity can be paided to the employee who had worked in the company for 4.9 years is has right to get the gratuity . please say me the details is there any Amendments are made , iam from the state of andhara pradesh please give me details ...
From India, Visakhapatnam
i had a problem in gratuity , as one of the employer has resigned in company , as per the chennai high court decision Gratuity can be paided to the employee who had worked in the company for 4.9 years is has right to get the gratuity . please say me the details is there any Amendments are made , iam from the state of andhara pradesh please give me details ...
From India, Visakhapatnam
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.
From India, Coimbatore
4From India, Coimbatore
Dear Prabhukumar ji,
Supreme Court Judgement in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal is not applicable in Gratuity matters since the said Judgement is pertaining to Industrial Dispute Act and not pertaining to Payment of Gratuity Act. Both the enactments are separate and independent having separate and different definitions under both.
Section 4 of POG Act says clearly that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
However, one can take the benefit of the Judgement of Madras HC in the matter of Mettur Beardsell if he is under the jurisdiction of Madras HC.
Earlier we have discussed on both the Judgements many times. My humble request to the members of the forum that they should make study before posting any thing so their posts should not be misguiding / misleading.
From India, Mumbai
Supreme Court Judgement in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal is not applicable in Gratuity matters since the said Judgement is pertaining to Industrial Dispute Act and not pertaining to Payment of Gratuity Act. Both the enactments are separate and independent having separate and different definitions under both.
Section 4 of POG Act says clearly that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
However, one can take the benefit of the Judgement of Madras HC in the matter of Mettur Beardsell if he is under the jurisdiction of Madras HC.
Earlier we have discussed on both the Judgements many times. My humble request to the members of the forum that they should make study before posting any thing so their posts should not be misguiding / misleading.
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.
FORM-F-NOMINATI ON OF GRATUITY.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc