Delay Payment Of Gratuity For Death Cases - CiteHR
Cite.Co is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors sharing their experience and insights.
Join Us and help by adding your inputs. Contributions From Other Members Follow Below...
Dear Hotgautam,

Your further explanation clearly brings out the fact that the employee who was a casual labour for some time earlier did not work for 190 days in any subsequent year even after his confirmation so as to claim gratuity. Hence you contend that he is not entitled to gratuity as he had not rendered continuous service of 190 days in any year even after his confirmation.

The interruptions mentioned wherever in the body of the sec.2-A of the PG Act,1972 for the deeming purpose of the entire stretch of service as continuous service presupposes the factum of continuity or regularity of employment not so as to snap the employer-employee relationship.

In the case of casual employment, there are no chances for such ocassional interruptions to be deemed as non-interruptions as it is a need-based or contigental engagement only in which case the entitlement to gratuity would arise only if the no of days actually worked is not less than the minimum limit fixed.

On the contrary, after confirmation of such a casual labour, the very nature of his employment becomes regular so as to attract the otherwise interruptions to make good the short fall, if any, in computing the no of actual days worked for the purpose of gratuity for that period. Had he failed to make it not less than 190 by his unauthorised absence, why the employer too failed to pass an order treating the absence as break in service becomes a valid question.

Therefore, your contention seems untenable to me based on the above reasoning.

Thanks Umakanthan Sir,
Yes, the onus lies on the management for keeping on the roll of company an employee with chronic habit of absenteeism but gratuity is a reward for unblemished service which may include completion 190 days attendance in a year for claiming gratuity for that year. However, in our company we pay gratuity to the regular employees for the year in which they do not fulfill the criteria of 190 days attendance also subject to not getting any letter confirming their absence as break in service. The only negative against the employee in question is that he was appointed as casual and remained casual throughout his employment period till he superannuated. I want to ask you once again Sir, whether he is eligible for getting gratuity in the eyes of law.

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 @ 2020 Cite.Co™