In Mettur Beardsell Ltd. (represented by Its Personnel Manager), Madras vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) : (Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act). 1. Madras & Others (W.P. No. 2135 0f 1987 decided on 12.6.1996) PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT~ 1972- 1998 LLR 1072 the Madras High Court has upheld such claim of less than 5 years actual service as eligible. The headnote reads as follows:
Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(e) and 2A - 'Continuous service' - Qualifying period of service by an employee -Entitlement of Gratuity - An employee rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days in a year will be deemed to have continued in service for 'one year as stipulated by section 2A of the Act -Thus an employee who has put in service for 10 months and 18 days for the fifth year subsequent to first 4 years should be deemed to have completed continuous service of five years -His claim for gratuity is tenable
To my knowledge there is no Supreme Court judgement on this point.
So there is enough basis for drshaumil to make a claim as he works for 5 days in a week and after completion of 4 years and 190 days of actual working.
My opinion is that five years are to be completed and then it will be seen if in last year 190/240 days work has been done.
I am yet to hear from any member who has raised this type of query whether he/she got Gratuity after actually completing only 4years.190/240 days.