Irel (India) Limited Vs P. N. Raghava Panicker (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP (C). No. 2254 of 2020 (F) 2/11/2020
Brief details
The issue under consideration is whether a trainee is excluded from the definition of the term ’employee’ under the Gratuity Act?
High Court states that, A plain reading of the said Act shows that it excludes an apprentice from the application of the provisions of “the Act”
Trainees give various duties during the course of the so called training and who is not deputed in a particular designated trade cannot be called as an apprentice or learner. The nomenclature of the post is not of much consequence while interpreting the beneficial provisions of the welfare statute. The Gratuity Act is undoubtedly a welfare statute which only bars an apprentice from the benefit of payment of gratuity during such training period.
designating an employee as trainee, extracting regular work from him and then denying him the benefit of Gratuity Act under the pretext of such employee being a trainee would certainly defeat the object of the welfare statute.
The employee was treated as eligble for gratuity on the basis of specific details relating to his case
designating an employee as trainee, extracting regular work from him and then denying him the benefit of Gratuity Act under the pretext of such employee being a trainee would certainly defeat the object of the welfare statute.
Appeal Number : WP (C). No. 2254 of 2020 (F) 2/11/2020
Brief details
The issue under consideration is whether a trainee is excluded from the definition of the term ’employee’ under the Gratuity Act?
High Court states that, A plain reading of the said Act shows that it excludes an apprentice from the application of the provisions of “the Act”
Trainees give various duties during the course of the so called training and who is not deputed in a particular designated trade cannot be called as an apprentice or learner. The nomenclature of the post is not of much consequence while interpreting the beneficial provisions of the welfare statute. The Gratuity Act is undoubtedly a welfare statute which only bars an apprentice from the benefit of payment of gratuity during such training period.
designating an employee as trainee, extracting regular work from him and then denying him the benefit of Gratuity Act under the pretext of such employee being a trainee would certainly defeat the object of the welfare statute.
The employee was treated as eligble for gratuity on the basis of specific details relating to his case
designating an employee as trainee, extracting regular work from him and then denying him the benefit of Gratuity Act under the pretext of such employee being a trainee would certainly defeat the object of the welfare statute.