loginmiraclelogisticsHi Mercury and other friends,
Pardon me for missing one more point here-
Section 4(2) of the PG Act says-
.... that for every completed year of service in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee. That means if an employee works in the establishment for more than 6 months in a year, he shall be eligible to get gratuity at the prescribed rate".
The extract of this section is reproduced here-
4. Payment of gratuity.
4. Payment of gratuity.- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment a fter he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,--
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to a
ccident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any
employee is due to death or disablement:
4*[Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of
such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.]
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
(2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the
termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages pa
id for any overtime work shall not be taken into account:
Provided further that in the case of 1*["an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year"], the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season.
I hope you would have completed 6 months service, can you pl.check on this aspect and find out whether you got it right?
Also read more when discussed on rounding of 6 months service to one year earlier also in this link -
From India, Bangalore
I have gone through the views of everyone on the issue and have also gone through the judgment of Madras H.C. With due respect to the judgment of Madras and Kerala High Courts, it is submitted that if 240 days is the day’s work to be put in over a period of 12 months in order to make the service continuous and uninterrupted, then there is no logic to have the qualifying period of 5 years for entitlement of gratuity and further why only in the 5th year it should be 240 days and not in all the years from 1st year to 5th year. If that is the ratio then every employee who completes 240 days in each of the year on wards i.e. from 1st year to 5th year should be entitled to gratuity. This according to me could never have been the intention of the legislature because if that had been the intention, there was no need to have the sentence “he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years” in Section 4(1) of the Act.
I had written an article on the issue which was published in 2019 (160) FLR Journal Section Page 90 on wards. For ready reference, the same is attached herewith.
From India, undefined
loginmiraclelogisticsThanks Mr.Sensharma for your inputs, good work, keep it up.
But I'm constrained to say, I/we have no locus standi to interpret the law or debate the intentions or no intentions of the legislature as it is not likely to provide any help or solutions to the seekers.
I think this platform serves the purpose of sharing the available information by search and source and help the needy, in the process come to know of many things of jurisprudence limited to sharing our suggestions & ideas pertinent. I'm of the opinion, I/we cannot sit in the judgment nor give directions with no risk & cost. Therefore I feel, I/we shall have no role in decision making on any matter, morefully as I/we should not mislead anyone even by mistake by my/our purported notions or give false hopes or deny when help is sought. Towards this only I restrict myself in sharing the docs & information which I could reach to and not to retort to anyone's opinions expressed herein whether they are in line with my thinking or otherwise. I would prefer to leave them as it's for the readers to assess. Members may agree or may not.
From India, Bangalore