Dear Friends,
1. Is it true that certain organizations, such as educational and research institutes, are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act?
2. Does the recent amendment to this act apply only to teachers (or also other staff) in schools and colleges?
3. Is there a specific "Private Law" applicable to such organizations defining the social security and other benefits to be given to its employees?
Thanks and regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1. Is it true that certain organizations, such as educational and research institutes, are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act?
2. Does the recent amendment to this act apply only to teachers (or also other staff) in schools and colleges?
3. Is there a specific "Private Law" applicable to such organizations defining the social security and other benefits to be given to its employees?
Thanks and regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends,
I would appreciate if someone responds mainly to the following question: Is it true that certain organizations, such as educational and research institutes, are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act?
Thanks and regards.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I would appreciate if someone responds mainly to the following question: Is it true that certain organizations, such as educational and research institutes, are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act?
Thanks and regards.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
It is hereby made clear that according to Section 1(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months will be covered under this Act. Every employee as per the definition of the employee under Section 2(e) is entitled to receive all benefits provided under this Act. After reviewing the definition of 'employee', teachers are not considered employees under this Act, and hence they are not entitled to gratuity payments under this Act.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
422It is hereby made clear that according to Section 1(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months will be covered under this Act. Every employee as per the definition of the employee under Section 2(e) is entitled to receive all benefits provided under this Act. After reviewing the definition of 'employee', teachers are not considered employees under this Act, and hence they are not entitled to gratuity payments under this Act.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Thank you for the clarification. However:
I just found out that there is an amendment to the payment of Gratuity act that
2. In the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, for clause (e), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
‘(e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine,oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules
providing for payment of gratuity;'
According to the above (broader) definition of Employee, would teachers and all the staff working in a research institute (researchers, research and technical assistants etc) be definitely covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act?
Thanks
with regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I just found out that there is an amendment to the payment of Gratuity act that
2. In the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, for clause (e), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—
‘(e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine,oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules
providing for payment of gratuity;'
According to the above (broader) definition of Employee, would teachers and all the staff working in a research institute (researchers, research and technical assistants etc) be definitely covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act?
Thanks
with regards
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
It is clarified that a teacher is not considered an employee under this Act by different courts. An amendment is under consideration to include teachers in the definition of an employee. Other staff, as mentioned by you, are considered employees and are entitled to gratuity benefits under this Act if the establishment is covered by this Act.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is clarified that a teacher is not considered an employee under this Act by different courts. An amendment is under consideration to include teachers in the definition of an employee. Other staff, as mentioned by you, are considered employees and are entitled to gratuity benefits under this Act if the establishment is covered by this Act.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
I am very thankful for the clarification. One more doubt:
Ours is a Research Institute established under Article 24 of the Treaty of Cession of French Territories in India that states that "it shall be maintained as a research and advanced educational establishment."
Although our Institute is more than 50 years old, the provision for paying Gratuity when people retired was started only after 1994 (but is lesser than the prescribed law in the sense that it is 15/30 times years of service instead of 15/26 and till January 2010, the upper limit remained 2.5 lakhs instead of 3.5 lakhs).
Hence, we are not sure if the management is bound by the law on Payment of Gratuity or is just doing it out of "goodwill" and hence, arbitrarily.
With thanks and best regards.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am very thankful for the clarification. One more doubt:
Ours is a Research Institute established under Article 24 of the Treaty of Cession of French Territories in India that states that "it shall be maintained as a research and advanced educational establishment."
Although our Institute is more than 50 years old, the provision for paying Gratuity when people retired was started only after 1994 (but is lesser than the prescribed law in the sense that it is 15/30 times years of service instead of 15/26 and till January 2010, the upper limit remained 2.5 lakhs instead of 3.5 lakhs).
Hence, we are not sure if the management is bound by the law on Payment of Gratuity or is just doing it out of "goodwill" and hence, arbitrarily.
With thanks and best regards.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
In this situation, contact your area enforcement officer or law enforcement agency (labour department) of the appropriate government. Ask them to hear both parties for the settlement of your grievance or dispute.
With Regards,
R.N. Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In this situation, contact your area enforcement officer or law enforcement agency (labour department) of the appropriate government. Ask them to hear both parties for the settlement of your grievance or dispute.
With Regards,
R.N. Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
I've resigned from M/S Sarabhai Zydus Animal Health Ltd. on 1st October 1999, from Andhra Pradesh. My gratuity was not settled by the employer until today. In this connection, I've filed a case in the labor court in the year 2001, but it was rejected by the labor department due to a delay in condonance. Furthermore, I've lodged a grievance in the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievance (DARPG) in New Delhi via Grievance No. DARPG/E/2006/06717 dated 21st July 2006 to settle my gratuity (since my resignation in 1999) from M/S Sarabhai Zydus Animal Health Ltd., Vadodara.
The above department has control over 16 departments under central and state governments, including the Department of Labor. Despite several reminders, there has been no action either from DARPG or the employer and also the Department of Labor, Gujarat. It is embarrassing for an employee whose common rights have not been protected by such departments. Kindly provide me with information to solve the above problem.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I've resigned from M/S Sarabhai Zydus Animal Health Ltd. on 1st October 1999, from Andhra Pradesh. My gratuity was not settled by the employer until today. In this connection, I've filed a case in the labor court in the year 2001, but it was rejected by the labor department due to a delay in condonance. Furthermore, I've lodged a grievance in the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievance (DARPG) in New Delhi via Grievance No. DARPG/E/2006/06717 dated 21st July 2006 to settle my gratuity (since my resignation in 1999) from M/S Sarabhai Zydus Animal Health Ltd., Vadodara.
The above department has control over 16 departments under central and state governments, including the Department of Labor. Despite several reminders, there has been no action either from DARPG or the employer and also the Department of Labor, Gujarat. It is embarrassing for an employee whose common rights have not been protected by such departments. Kindly provide me with information to solve the above problem.
From India, Nellore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
As per your brief statement, you have already filed a claim case before the Labour Court/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was rejected on the ground of delay in filing the claim case. At that time, instead of approaching DARPG, you should have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, now, in my opinion, no remedy is available to you. You have already availed the legal remedy that was available to you.
Opinion/comments submitted as requested.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As per your brief statement, you have already filed a claim case before the Labour Court/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was rejected on the ground of delay in filing the claim case. At that time, instead of approaching DARPG, you should have preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, now, in my opinion, no remedy is available to you. You have already availed the legal remedy that was available to you.
Opinion/comments submitted as requested.
With Regards,
R.N.Khola
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Gratuity Act-Teachers-Ma dhya Pradesh.docx