My factory is a Sugar factory where casual employees are working during function of the sugar factory i.e. Dec to March.
The Temporary/seasonal employees engaged during the period are paid Gratuity @ 7 days/ year. But the casual employees are only paid where their work is for 240 days a year and not paid for less than that.
Weather the Casual employee are eligible for gratuity @ 7 days/ year like seasonal employees for not completed 240 days?
The Temporary/seasonal employees engaged during the period are paid Gratuity @ 7 days/ year. But the casual employees are only paid where their work is for 240 days a year and not paid for less than that.
Weather the Casual employee are eligible for gratuity @ 7 days/ year like seasonal employees for not completed 240 days?
As per my understanding you will have both regular employees as well as seasonal workers. The latter are engaged only during that season. If your casual workers have been employed regularly throughout the year they should have 240 days attendance in order to claim gratuity whereas those casual workers who are normally engaged during the seasons only can claim gratuity if they have worked for 75% of the total working days in each season.
From India, Kannur
4248From India, Kannur
First of all let it be clarified that employee under the PGA 1972 means and includes any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, ....... . The temporary worker is a nomenclature adopted by the establishment and being temporary cannot be the factor to decide on the eligibility of gratuity so long as the condition like continuous service is met. As per Section 2A (3) if the employee works for 75% of the total working days in each season, that amounts to continuous service for that and hence eligible to receive gratuity. However, you may see the following Kerala High Court decision and see the per contra decision, It was held that any workman engaged for work on temporary basis according to the availability of work is not "employee" within the meaning of section 2(e) See K.Velukutty Achary v. Harrison Malayalam Ltd. (1993) 66 FLR 423 (Ker) (DB)
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear Friends, For the resolution of this query I think we should request Mr Umakanth to guide & enlighten us. Warm Regards Bharat Gera HR Consultant 9322404765
From India, Thane
From India, Thane
Dear friends,
First of all, I thank our friend Mr.Bharath for having invited me to participate in the on-going discussion regarding the eligibility of casual labor to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 though the question is restricted to casual labor engaged during the seasons only. With meticulous attention and dispassionate analysis, I've considered the views of our learned friends M/S Madhu and KK!HR in the back drop of various judgments to the extent of my knowledge such as Surendrakumar Verma v. The C.G.I.T cum Labor Court [1980 SCC (4) 443], Jeevanlal Ltd v. A.A under the P.G Act [AIR 1984 SC 1842], Keshav Chand v. the State of Punjab [ AIR 1988 P&H 265], K.Velukkutty Achari v. Harrison Malayalam Ltd [1993 66 FLR 423 (Ker)], Municipal Council, Panna v. C.A and Another [ H.C, M.P (2002 -2- LLN-609 ]and Commissioner, Idappadi Municipality v. Joint Commissioner of Labor, Coimbatore [2014 II CLR 36 - Madras H.C ].
If we analyse the definition of the term "employee" u/s 2(e) of the PG Act,1972, the use of the word "any person" excludes only an apprentice and therefore clearly implies that all employees including casual, temporary are entitled to gratuity on the termination of their employment if they have rendered the continuous service as defined u/s 2-A of the Act. Of course there are certain other judgments distinguishing the terms "employed" and "engaged" under strict etymological connotations which, in my opinion, can not be a liberal approach of interpretation while considering a beneficial legislation like the P.G Act,1972. Following the ratio decidendi of the full bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryna H.C cited supra, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the period of service the workman rendered on daily wage post and regular post are to be counted for the purpose of payment of gratuity { HPSEB v. Balak Ram[ 2008(2)LLJ 8]}. The facts of the Harrison Malayalam Case cited are totally different.
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that whenever a casual labor completes the minimum qualifying service of not less than 5 years under the same employer, he is eligible and entitled for gratuity for those years in which he has rendered continuous service as per se.2-A upon the termination of his employment.
From India, Salem
First of all, I thank our friend Mr.Bharath for having invited me to participate in the on-going discussion regarding the eligibility of casual labor to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 though the question is restricted to casual labor engaged during the seasons only. With meticulous attention and dispassionate analysis, I've considered the views of our learned friends M/S Madhu and KK!HR in the back drop of various judgments to the extent of my knowledge such as Surendrakumar Verma v. The C.G.I.T cum Labor Court [1980 SCC (4) 443], Jeevanlal Ltd v. A.A under the P.G Act [AIR 1984 SC 1842], Keshav Chand v. the State of Punjab [ AIR 1988 P&H 265], K.Velukkutty Achari v. Harrison Malayalam Ltd [1993 66 FLR 423 (Ker)], Municipal Council, Panna v. C.A and Another [ H.C, M.P (2002 -2- LLN-609 ]and Commissioner, Idappadi Municipality v. Joint Commissioner of Labor, Coimbatore [2014 II CLR 36 - Madras H.C ].
If we analyse the definition of the term "employee" u/s 2(e) of the PG Act,1972, the use of the word "any person" excludes only an apprentice and therefore clearly implies that all employees including casual, temporary are entitled to gratuity on the termination of their employment if they have rendered the continuous service as defined u/s 2-A of the Act. Of course there are certain other judgments distinguishing the terms "employed" and "engaged" under strict etymological connotations which, in my opinion, can not be a liberal approach of interpretation while considering a beneficial legislation like the P.G Act,1972. Following the ratio decidendi of the full bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryna H.C cited supra, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the period of service the workman rendered on daily wage post and regular post are to be counted for the purpose of payment of gratuity { HPSEB v. Balak Ram[ 2008(2)LLJ 8]}. The facts of the Harrison Malayalam Case cited are totally different.
The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that whenever a casual labor completes the minimum qualifying service of not less than 5 years under the same employer, he is eligible and entitled for gratuity for those years in which he has rendered continuous service as per se.2-A upon the termination of his employment.
From India, Salem
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.
Gratuity- casual daily rated period to be considered.PDF
Gratuity Form I.doc