I had a problem with gratuity, as one of the employers has resigned from the company. According to the Chennai High Court decision, gratuity can be paid to an employee who has worked in the company for 4.9 years; they have the right to receive the gratuity. Please provide me with details regarding any amendments that have been made. I am from the state of Andhra Pradesh. Kindly give me the necessary information.
Thank you.
Regards.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Thank you.
Regards.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, [(1980) (4) S.C.C.433)], it is enough that an employee has a service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months, and it is not necessary that he should have completed one whole year's service. As the definition of continuous service in the Industrial Dispute Act and the Payment of Gratuity Act are synonymous, the same principle can be adopted under the act also. Hence, an employee rendering service of 4 years, 10 months, and 11 days is considered to have completed 5 years of continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity.
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
4From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Supreme Court Judgment and Gratuity Matters
The Supreme Court Judgment in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal is not applicable in gratuity matters since the said judgment pertains to the Industrial Dispute Act and not to the Payment of Gratuity Act. Both enactments are separate and independent, each with different definitions.
Gratuity Payment Under the POG Act
Section 4 of the POG Act clearly states that gratuity shall be payable to an employee upon the termination of their employment after they have rendered continuous service for not less than five years. However, one can benefit from the judgment of Madras HC in the matter of Mettur Beardsell if they are under the jurisdiction of Madras HC.
We have previously discussed both judgments many times. My humble request to the members of the forum is that they should study before posting anything so that their posts are not misleading.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
The Supreme Court Judgment in Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal is not applicable in gratuity matters since the said judgment pertains to the Industrial Dispute Act and not to the Payment of Gratuity Act. Both enactments are separate and independent, each with different definitions.
Gratuity Payment Under the POG Act
Section 4 of the POG Act clearly states that gratuity shall be payable to an employee upon the termination of their employment after they have rendered continuous service for not less than five years. However, one can benefit from the judgment of Madras HC in the matter of Mettur Beardsell if they are under the jurisdiction of Madras HC.
We have previously discussed both judgments many times. My humble request to the members of the forum is that they should study before posting anything so that their posts are not misleading.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)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.
Employee Benefits.doc
SBT Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner- Gratuity dismissed employee-LTS.PD F