Understanding Continuous Service: How Do Gratuity Act and Industrial Dispute Act Differ?

Is there any difference between the definition of Continuous Service under Section 2A of the Gratuity Act and Section 25B of the Industrial Dispute Act? Kindly share in length.

Dear Sandip, as per the Gratuity Act, refer to the below definition of continuous service:

Continuous service:

(1) An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if the employee has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave, lay-off, strike, or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee.

(2) Where an employee (not being an employee employed in a seasonal establishment) is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1), for any period of 1 year or 6 months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer:

(a) For the said period of 1 year, if the employee during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. In any other case;

(b) For the said period of 6 months, if the employee during the period of 6 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 120 days. In any other case.

I hope this information clarifies the concept of continuous service as per the Gratuity Act.

Thank you.

Hi Jyoti, thanks for your prompt reply. I am wondering if there is any difference between the two under different acts, or if it remains the same.

The definitions under two different Acts regarding 'Continuous Service' are juxtaposed and explained using Supreme Court/High Court judgments in different contexts, as in the attachment, which can be referred to.