Dear friends,
After a dispassionate consideration of the points for and against the entitlement of employment benefits, particularly, the payment of statutory gratuity in proportion to the actual length of fixed term contract of an employee in view of the amendment to the Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Central Rules, I have a different perception based on the following points:
1) The amendment recognizes and extends yet another classification of workmen in all the industrial establishments coming under the purview of the IE(SO)Act,1946.
2) The amendment serves the dual purpose of enabling flexible hire and fire of employees on jobs of ad hoc or special nature that lasts only for a predictable duration and conferring the same employment benefits on such contract employees on par with the regular employees of the establishment.
3) The arrangement of payment of employment benefits in proportion to the actual length of the contract service notwithstanding any statutory minimum qualifying service also tends to curb the tendency of keeping workmen on contract basis indefinitely with occasional or intermittent artificial breaks.
4) The entire discussion revolves around the provisions of the minimum qualifying service u/s 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 vis-a-vis the IE(SO)CENTRAL Rules,1946 as stand amended in 2018. In fact, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, this amended provision does not run counter to the completion of minimum qualifying service but by creating an agreement or contract of fixed term employment, actually confers on such employees the right to receive better terms of gratuity as provided for u/s 4(5) of the PGA,1972.
After a dispassionate consideration of the points for and against the entitlement of employment benefits, particularly, the payment of statutory gratuity in proportion to the actual length of fixed term contract of an employee in view of the amendment to the Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Central Rules, I have a different perception based on the following points:
1) The amendment recognizes and extends yet another classification of workmen in all the industrial establishments coming under the purview of the IE(SO)Act,1946.
2) The amendment serves the dual purpose of enabling flexible hire and fire of employees on jobs of ad hoc or special nature that lasts only for a predictable duration and conferring the same employment benefits on such contract employees on par with the regular employees of the establishment.
3) The arrangement of payment of employment benefits in proportion to the actual length of the contract service notwithstanding any statutory minimum qualifying service also tends to curb the tendency of keeping workmen on contract basis indefinitely with occasional or intermittent artificial breaks.
4) The entire discussion revolves around the provisions of the minimum qualifying service u/s 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972 vis-a-vis the IE(SO)CENTRAL Rules,1946 as stand amended in 2018. In fact, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, this amended provision does not run counter to the completion of minimum qualifying service but by creating an agreement or contract of fixed term employment, actually confers on such employees the right to receive better terms of gratuity as provided for u/s 4(5) of the PGA,1972.