Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to factories, mines, plantations, ports and oil fields without any reference to the number of employees. The number of 10 or more for coverage applies only if the establishment is a shop or commercial establishment other than a factory, oil field, plantation, port or railway company
Ask for an investigation by Labour Commissioner and hope for the best.But also remember the employee who has complained will be in danger of loosing his job.So unity is strength and employees need to join hands and force the issue.
Already Mr. Madhu has given his valued opinion. Further, no one can prevent anyone from opening or registering company/companies unless untill they are illegal. Here we have to be very sympathetic as it is violation of workman's right. The propritor has alrady taken immunity against laws, rules & cracks existing within the law.
A detailed study of those firms required to be done; 1. Name of propritor/owner/board of directors/ registration with ROC/ Nature of work/Number of workman engaged etc. All the things are to be compiled so as to have the "Definite Meaning" so that a legal fight can be fought. All the workmen involved are to be united stand to fight. But in simple term the workmen engaged are not eligible for gratuity, already you have reasoned out.
Trail of employees being shifted rom company A to B to C will be there.Employees need to unite and dig out the trail and let Labour Commissioner be aware of this hoodwinking of welfare laws.
Some employee has to take this pain and let facts come out in public knowledge.
Then employer will realise it is cheaper and safer to take compulsory insurance for gratuity rather than take chances of transfer of employees from time to time.
Speak out, write to labour authorities and ask for investigation.
What you have written above is true.
In a context of our nation, past 70 years things have moved on-many good developments, many good laws and so on.But our basic nature has remained a mystery.
Industrialists look for quick gains for themselves by and large and in the process try for short cuts-keep number of employees below 19 for avoiding PF(earlier)
open 3-4 firms and circumvent Gratuity and with overwhelming population and desperate job seekers, these get overlooked and law/regulatory agencies of the State are lethargic and corrupt.
My question is as long as we dont change our quick rich syndrone,no law is going to help.As many laws are there, that many loopholes.Some specialise in finding out loopholes in law.
We have maximum number of laws in the world.
Following law in good spirit and for public good is the only way things can change.
IT Act 1961 is a classic example of amendmentsgalore such that original law has totally changed.
Deep introspection is the need of the hour.Top leaders need to start this introspection cutting across narrow loyalties and work for India as a whole.
Take Japan -no natural resources, totally dependent on imports, but is so productive that they produce more than twice our GDP in a place which is largely mountain and 1/5th of our land mass area and with frequent earthquakes and with far less population.
Top class education, focus on quality and decisive leadership has brought Japan from a totally destroyed nation to where it is now.
We have lessons to learn from this, but will we?
Sorry if post is off topic from normal HR posts.
Concept of Social Security in general sense is that it refers to protection provided to individual members of the society by the society against providential mishaps beyond control of an individual person. The underlying philosophy of social security is that the State shall make itself responsible for ensuring a minimum standard of material welfare to all its citizens on a basis wide enough to cover all the main contingencies of life. In other sense, social security is primarily an instrument of social and economic justice.
According to a definition given in the ILO, “Social security is the security that society furnishes through appropriate organisation against certain risks to which its members are exposed. These risks are essentially contingencies of life which the individual of small means cannot effectively provide by his own ability, or foresight alone or even in private combination with his fellows”.
Social Security is defined as “a means of securing an income to take the place of earnings when they are interrupted by unemployment, sickness or accident to provide for the retirement through old age, to provide against loss of support by death of another person or to meet exceptional expenditure connected with birth, death, or marriage. The purpose of social security is to provide an income up to a minimum and also medical treatment to bring the interruption of earnings to an end as soon as possible.
Where is it written in the “Payment of Gratuity Act” that organisations having less than 10 employees are “barred” from paying Gratuity? In fact, the question itself says intermediate activities are separated out purposely to avoid “Payment of Gratuity”. Now, should this question be admitted into the forum?
I have reservations about it.
The basic concept /idea/query in this post by the querist is a solution to the diversionary and splitting tactics taken up by the owner of the company.
The owner is allegedly having several companies and keeps transferring employees to avoid payment of gratuity.
It is well known a company can pay gratuity to an employee even if he has one employee, but here he has more than legally stipulated minimum of 10 employes but he plays around the figure by transfer of employees.
He is seeking a legal solution to the issue of employer playing around taking advantage of employee desperately needing the job.
As such HR is tasked with ensuring that social security schemes like Maternity act-Gratuity -is turned into reality on ground.
So the question is very much admissible to my mind.