Dear Colleagues,
I would like to request you to please update me about the latest information regarding the minimum service required for gratuity claims. Previously, it was 5 years, but in some cases, it can be paid upon completion of 4 years and 240 days as per various court orders.
Thank you.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I would like to request you to please update me about the latest information regarding the minimum service required for gratuity claims. Previously, it was 5 years, but in some cases, it can be paid upon completion of 4 years and 240 days as per various court orders.
Thank you.
From India, Noida
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The explicit provision in the PG Act 1972 is for having a qualified service of 5 years, but as per Section 2A thereof service of 240 days suffices to qualify as a completed year of service for a year.
So there are a few judgments of the High Court ordering payment of gratuity with 2 years and more than 240 days of continuous service. This position continues.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So there are a few judgments of the High Court ordering payment of gratuity with 2 years and more than 240 days of continuous service. This position continues.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
The Gratuity Act stipulates completion of 5 years of continuous service to become eligible to claim gratuity (except in cases of death or disablement, where the 5 years condition is relaxed).
There are a few judgments like the Madras High Court Judgment that need to be adhered to and state that if an employee completes 4 years and 240 days in the 5th year, then he/she is eligible to receive gratuity. In short, the provisions of the Act remain the same, but the interpretation has changed due to the judgment.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Gratuity Act stipulates completion of 5 years of continuous service to become eligible to claim gratuity (except in cases of death or disablement, where the 5 years condition is relaxed).
There are a few judgments like the Madras High Court Judgment that need to be adhered to and state that if an employee completes 4 years and 240 days in the 5th year, then he/she is eligible to receive gratuity. In short, the provisions of the Act remain the same, but the interpretation has changed due to the judgment.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Bramh Prakash,
The term "Continuous Service", occurring in sec. 4(1) of the PG Act, 1972 in the context of minimum qualifying service for payment of gratuity under the Act, has been already defined u/s 2-A of the Act. It remains the same till now. While interpreting the same, the honorable Madras High Court in Mettur Beardsel Ltd., v. Regional Labor Commissioner (Central) [1998 LLR 1072] held that if an employee has completed 240 days of continuous service under the employer in the 5th year of service prior to the date of termination of his employment, he becomes eligible for gratuity as if he has served for 5 years. Though it is a judgment of a High Court only, no contrary judgment from any other High Court is available so far. In addition, the Madras H.C referred to the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1980 (4) SCC 433] on the interpretation of the term 'continuous service' u/s 25-B of the ID Act, 1947 which is in pari materia. Again in 2011, the Madras High Court held the same view in yet another case between the Management of Salem Textiles Ltd and the Appellate Authority under the PGA, Coimbatore.
Yet, still some employers of establishments situated in other States erroneously contend that the Madras High Court judgment will not bind establishments situated in other States. Since the PGA, 1972 is a Central Legislation uniformity of judicial interpretation is a sine qua non for the enforcement of the Act across the country. Therefore, in the absence of a contrary judgment by any other State High Court or a decision by the Apex Court on the interpretation of a specific question of law, the decision of a particular High Court which alone had the occasion to decide the issue and decided in a manner to advance the benefits of a beneficial legislation should be adopted by all.
If we dispassionately analyze the provisions of sec. 2-A (2), in appropriate cases falling under clause (a)(i), it can be 190 days in the 5th year.
In addition, the position regarding interpretation of the term for the purpose of gratuity under the yet to be implemented Code on Social Security, 2020 would also be the same by virtue of section 54 of the Code.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The term "Continuous Service", occurring in sec. 4(1) of the PG Act, 1972 in the context of minimum qualifying service for payment of gratuity under the Act, has been already defined u/s 2-A of the Act. It remains the same till now. While interpreting the same, the honorable Madras High Court in Mettur Beardsel Ltd., v. Regional Labor Commissioner (Central) [1998 LLR 1072] held that if an employee has completed 240 days of continuous service under the employer in the 5th year of service prior to the date of termination of his employment, he becomes eligible for gratuity as if he has served for 5 years. Though it is a judgment of a High Court only, no contrary judgment from any other High Court is available so far. In addition, the Madras H.C referred to the ratio decidendi of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1980 (4) SCC 433] on the interpretation of the term 'continuous service' u/s 25-B of the ID Act, 1947 which is in pari materia. Again in 2011, the Madras High Court held the same view in yet another case between the Management of Salem Textiles Ltd and the Appellate Authority under the PGA, Coimbatore.
Yet, still some employers of establishments situated in other States erroneously contend that the Madras High Court judgment will not bind establishments situated in other States. Since the PGA, 1972 is a Central Legislation uniformity of judicial interpretation is a sine qua non for the enforcement of the Act across the country. Therefore, in the absence of a contrary judgment by any other State High Court or a decision by the Apex Court on the interpretation of a specific question of law, the decision of a particular High Court which alone had the occasion to decide the issue and decided in a manner to advance the benefits of a beneficial legislation should be adopted by all.
If we dispassionately analyze the provisions of sec. 2-A (2), in appropriate cases falling under clause (a)(i), it can be 190 days in the 5th year.
In addition, the position regarding interpretation of the term for the purpose of gratuity under the yet to be implemented Code on Social Security, 2020 would also be the same by virtue of section 54 of the Code.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Minimum Qualifying service for Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.docx
Minimum Wages in Maharashtra for the period January 2018 to June 2018.xls