Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Korgaonkar K A
Srinath Sai Ram
Amit Aishwary Choudhary
Managing People At Work.
If your termination of employment takes place on 30-11-2017, the total service rendered would be 4 years 8 months and 2 days. Therefore, you are eligible for gratuity as per the judgment of the hon'ble High Court of Madras in Mettur Beardsel case which is generally followed in practice. The formula for calculation of gratuity as per the PGAct,1972 is - Last drawn wages/salary divided by 26 multiplied by 15 and the no. of years of service rendered. Without knowing your likely last drawn salary( the total of basic and dearness allowance only), it is not possible to calculate the amount of gratuity consequent on your proposed termination of employment in November,2017.
10th September 2017 From India, Salem
House Rent Allowance 8,000
Conveyance Allowance 1,600
Special Allowance 13,489
Skill Premium Allowance 2,917
Advance Statutory Bonus 2,000
Please let me know the amount I can get as gratuity.
10th September 2017 From India, Kolkata
As per your provided Information,
The last drawn salary by You = Basic +D.A =15,025+0 = Rs.15,025
Year of Service = 4 years 7 month and 15 days = Rounded off to the nearest Integer = 5 years
Gratuity Amount = Last Drawn Salary X No.of years of Services X 15/26
= 15,025 X 5 X 15/26 = Rs. 43342
Please make a note that within 30 days of termination/Relieving of employment Gratuity becoming payable.
10th September 2017 From India, Delhi
Nice to interacting with you after long gap.
Gratuity for 4 years and 240 days, this subject is discussed by me several times and I got fed up on this subject.
Sir, are you also of the opinion that the judgement of Madras High Court is binding all other States?
There is similar judgement of HC Kerala.
3rd October 2017 From India, Mumbai
I too feel happy to have this nice opportunity to interact with you once again. About the issue of completion of continuous service of 5 years by an employee under the same employer in order to become eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972, still I stick to my stand elaborately explained in the thread against the arguments advanced by our learned friend Advocate Mr.Kamal Kanth Tyagi. About the binding nature of the judgment of a particular High Court on all other States, I do not differ from your view point. However, since High Courts and the Supreme Court of India are undoubtedly the repositories of the wisdom of interpretation of our Laws in favour of the social and economic justice of the weaker class of the partners of production, I am of the view that in the absence of contrary judgments by a larger bench of any other High Court or the Supreme Court on a particular contentious issue, we can abide by the decision of any High Court that advances the welfare of labour. Thank you.
3rd October 2017 From India, Salem
I respect your view which states that in the absence of contrary judgments by a larger bench of any other High Court or the Supreme Court on a particular contentious issue, we can abide by the decision of any High Court that advances the welfare of labour. But unfortunately I have a different view in this regard since beginning. According to me, your view seems to render the concept of Gratuity otiose.
Nevertheless, I enjoy interacting with you and very few members in this forum who writes logically.
11th October 2017 From India, Mumbai
Really I am much pleased with your further response on the subject-matter of eligibility criterion for gratuity based on the completion of not less than five years of service by an employee under the same employer. Truly speaking, it is not my own view in as much as the facts of the Mettur Beardsel Ltd.,case did not involve the aspect of break in service caused by the employee or the ceasure of employer-employee relationship but the modification of the definition of the term "employee" as it stood then for the purpose of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 in terms of the cap on the wages drawn by the person consequent on his promotion to a post with a higher salary in the same establishment. Only under such a fact situation, the hon'ble High Court of Madras took the definition of " continuous service " u/s 2-A into its consideration for granting relief to the employee who was denied gratuity earlier on the premise of not being an "employee" having rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
As far as I know there is no judgment so far juxtaposing the "continuous service" subsequently defined u/s 2-A and the "continuous service for not less than five years" mentioned originally in sec.4(1) of the Act for the payment of gratuity.
13th October 2017 From India, Salem
14th October 2017 From India, New Delhi
29th January 2018 From India, Mumbai
this is important
It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from a judgment of Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be complete ‘law’ declared by the Apex Court. Judgment must be read as a whole and the observations have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before the Court, principle emerging there from must be applied accordingly
Precedents on Precedents; Choice between Conflicting Ratios of Equal Strength; An Area of Precedential Chaos | Live Law
""I am of the view that in the absence of contrary judgments by a larger bench of any other High Court or the Supreme Court on a particular contentious issue, we can abide by the decision of any High Court that advances the welfare of labour. Thank you.""
This principle which upholds welfare laws needs to be adhered to after considering all circumstances and facts of the case
29th January 2018 From India, Pune