is 4 years 11 months 11 days continuous service in Limited company applicable to claim Gratuity ?
i have served 21 days short for 6 years complete including 11 months probation . But still company is deying to provide my gratuity.


As per statutory requirement regarding eligibility of gratuity payment, if an employee completes 4 yrs of continuous services and on 5th year, if he completes 240 working days (including weekly off, paid leave, National/Festival holidays of company) he is entitled to receive payment of gratuity.
From India, Aizawl
You are eligible for gratuity.
From India, Delhi
Dear Gailygobi420,
I disagree with both the learned friends responded that you are eligible for gratuity for working 4 years 11 months 11 days.
As per Gratuity Act, Gratuity is payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years.
If you are from Chennai or from Kerala then you are eligible for Gratuity in light of Madras High Court judgement in Mettur Beardsell Ltd vs Regional labour Commissioner (1998 LLR 1072) and Kerala High Court in Sreeja Vs Regional Joint Labour Commissioner (2015 LLR 826).
You further said that you served 21 days short for 6 years including 11 months probation. Then where is the question? You are eligible then. Or you made mistake in writing 21 days short for 6 years?

From India, Mumbai
Dear friends,
The continuous service of 4 yrs+240 days for the 5th yr. norm has been upheld by the Apex court in a couple of judgments in determining 'continuous service', therefore it will be in order to grant gratuity in this respect. On the strength of SC's judgment this norm applies commonly all over India.

From India, Bangalore
Prof. Kumar S.
With due respect to you I would like you to elaborate on the couple of judgements in determining 'continuous service' so that there will be clarity in understanding by the members like me and there won't be any ambiguity.

From India, Mumbai
Dear colleagues,
There has been lengthy discussions on this issue few years ago in this forum. Many still argue that a person becomes eligible only when he/she completes 5 yrs 'continuous service' and saying so most keep in mind 5 x 12 calendar months quoting verbatim words mentioned in the act. But conveniently forget/ignore, a year of service also means a minimum of 240 days of 'employment' in the preceding year and for the purpose of gratuity service over 6 months can be treated as full year. Action has not been initiated even after the interpretation made in apex court's judgments more than once to amend the act to remove the ambiguity to bring in uniformity all over
Pl.go thru the following link on the subject.
Also the SC judgment is attached.

From India, Bangalore

Attached Files
File Type: doc SC judgment-240 days for gratuity-LALAPPA LINGAPPA.doc (64.5 KB, 30 views)

Dear Prof. Kumar S.
Thanks for responding.
I am not an expert. But I would like to put some logic as under:
The SC judgement in Lallappa Lingappa is of 1981.
The Madras HC judgement in Mettur Beardsell Ltd is of 1998.
And the Kerala HC judgement in Sreeja is of 2015.
If the SC decides on the subject in 1981 then how the High Courts at Madras and Kerala admits the matter subsequent to that of SC decision? And how the ambiguity subsists thereafter?

From India, Mumbai
Dear colleagues,
I only shared what are available thru' the web, law journals, reports, articles and other sources. I'm not a legal practitioner/expert either as I'm still in service but a keen reader of legal/HR/Fin. matters, truly an academician in real terms. I only believe there is a lot more, oceans of knowledge & info to be known & read, there cannot be limits. In this sense, it's not right to interpret the judgments passed by the courts, but only can analyse for sharing the knowledge sake. We can disseminate whatever think right. The chronology you pointed out are right but we can't say why and why not. Things do happen, but legal system is such that unless there are pleas courts will not be able to analyse all the cases dealt in all the courts enmasse, that you know. Interpretation of laws does differs from court to court, even judge to judge. For people willing to take advantage of available info/aids it's proactive. The unwilling persons take advantage of the fact that the Act still remains unamended. I would appeal to all concerned to take a positive view in the matter and pave way to grant gratuity rightfully due.

From India, Bangalore

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™