Saswatabanerjee
Partner - Risk Management
Raj Kumar Hansdah
Shrm, Od, Hrd, Pms
Prashant Vishwakarma
Provident Fund, Esic, Professional Tax, Contract
+2 Others

Dear All Respected Seniors,
Below is case where employee worked as per given details
01st Year = Completed 240 Days
02nd Year = Completed 240 Days
03rd Year = Completed 240 Days
04th Year = Completed 240 Days
05th Year = Not Completed 240 Days
06th Year = Completed 240 Days
07th Year = Completed 240 Days
08th Year = Completed 240 Days
09th Year = Completed 240 Days ( Resigned & Separated after competion in 9th Year )
So is the employee eligible fro Gratuity as per Gratuity Act ?
Thanks in adcance.....!!!

From India, Pune
Yaa employee s eligible. Gratuity act states dat from start date to end date there should be difference of 5 years...its not calculated based on number of days employee worked.
Thanks
Deepa
Blogs - Famous Great All In One

From India, Mumbai
Dear Prashant, The concern employee is eligible for Gratuity, as he has completed more than 5 years of service with the company as per the norms of Gratuity Act.
From India, Andheri
Yes he is eligible gratuity.But for how many years?In the above case in the 5th year he has not worked for 240 days.The no of days short of 240 are those for which the employer has issued an order treating it as break in service( read sec2A (1) of POG Act) he will get gratuity for 8 years only.The 240 days includes days of lay off,leaves earned in previous year,absence due to employment injury,12 weeks MLin addition to actual presence.
Varghese Mthew
9961266966

From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Prashant B. Ingawale

I find that you have been a member since 2007.

Are you working in HR deptt. or in some other functions?

It is surprising that such queries are at all put up for resolutions.

Anyone who has even the barest idea of POGA 1972, should know that under Sec. 4 of the ACT -

Payment of gratuity.- (1) 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,--



The provision is VERY CLEAR.

The concept of 240 days comes only in the 5th year. For longer services, i.e. 6,7, 8 or more years there is no question of looking at 240 days for the PURPOSE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR GRATUITY.

The concerned employee here has worked for 9 years.

Just because he has worked for less than 240 days in the 5th year; you want to deprive him of his gratuity ??

We would like to know; what was the purpose for making this query ??

Is it to find out ways to AVOID payment of rightful gratuity to an employee who has worked for 9 years ???

From India, Delhi
Prashant,
The query can not be answered with the information you have provided.
The eligible for gratuity will depend on what is the reason for which he did not complete 240 days in the 5 th year.
The act talks of continuous service.
So, what is continuous service ? You need to check your standing orders to see what constitutes a service break. If there was a service break, then the continuous service starts again from the date he rejoined and he will not have completed 5 years.
Leave of absence properly approved, even without pay, does not amount to service break. There are similar rules laid down by courts for other conditions (maternity related leave is not service breaks)
If you can tell us why he did not complete 240 days in that month

From India, Mumbai
Dear Seniors,
Thanks a lot for your kind inputs.
My query was related to Unauthorized absebce of employee for which employee has been "warned" after issuing chargesheet to employee & employee ask for " Written Apology " for his misconduct & requested for not to terminate.

From India, Pune
Dear friends

Please go through the following provisions of the Act which are self-explanatory .

Whether an employee is absent due to reasons which can range from sickness or absence as a result of any accident - whether ornot in the course of employment; or for WHATEVER REASON including Unauthorised absence.... CAN NOT be an EXCUSE to deny him Gratuity.



For whatever reasons; if the employee has not been present for more than 240 days in a year; it does NOT constitute BREAK IN SERVICE.

In big Manufacturing industries; many employees routinely suffer accidents and they are Unfit for more than 6 months at a time. Their presence for less than 240 days does not make them ineligible for gratuity in similar cases.

Women employee take Maternity Leave and additional Child care leaves and thus, in their service tenure; there will be several instances; where after 3 or 4 years they will attend duty for less than 240 days in a year.

Does it mean that their Gratuity period and Service shall be counted from the year succeeding the year on which they had taken their LAST MATERNITY LEAVE ???



In the case as cited above; any qualified and experienced HR can easily see through the ploy of the Management to deny Gratuity to an employee who has worked for 9 years continuously.

It may sound harsh to some - but one should NOT CONTINUE to remain s frog in a well; and interpret Laws in one's own exploitative ways. I do not have words to call such companies who indulge in such activities routinely. It also reflects on the calibre of their HR professionals and reinforces the fact that just anyone from any discipline becomes HR manager in such companies; the concern that has been reflected time and again in this forum.

Warm regards.

From India, Delhi
If he has been charge sheeted and then warned and allowed to continue working, it will not amount to a service break. So it will be considered as uninterrupted service.
However, i am not very clear on matters related to disciplinary action. So hope seniors will clarify

From India, Mumbai
I fully endorse your statement !! There is absolutely no doubt in this case, if the facts as stated are true.
From India, Delhi
This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™