Dear All,
Supreme Court Ruling on Gratuity for Teachers
The Supreme Court has ruled that teachers are entitled to gratuity, providing significant relief to the teaching community across the country. Recalling its earlier judgment, which had rejected teachers' claims to gratuity, the court stated, "In the light of the amendment made in the definition of the word 'employee' by Parliament with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997." This judgment will have implications for all teachers who have retired since 1997. The act was amended in 2009 but was put into effect retrospectively. A bench of justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra noted that they had erred in their January 2019 judgment, as it was not brought to their notice that Parliament had, by an amendment, brought teachers within the definition of "employees" entitled to gratuity.
Conditions for Withholding Gratuity
The Supreme Court stated that the gratuity money of an employee could be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues, such as overstaying in official accommodation. A division bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in a judgment dated 29 April 2020 in the matter of BCH Electric Limited v. Pradeep Mehra, dealt with the applicability of Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act). It held that Section 4 (5) of the Act will only apply if there are alternate options for the employee under the Act and the terms of the contract with the employee, and the employee is entitled to receive the higher available benefit among the two options.
Clarification on Continuous Service Requirement
Further to that, I am enclosing the reported judgment of the Supreme Court of India, dated 23.09.1980, Surendra Kumar Verma Etc. versus The Central Government Tribunal cum Labour Court. In this decision, the Court observed: "The provision appears to be plain enough. Section 25-F requires that a workman should be in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer before that provision applies. While so, present Section 25 B (2) steps in and says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve months. There is no stipulation that he should have been in employment or service under the employer for a whole period of twelve months. In fact, the thrust of the provision is that he need not be. That appears to be the plain meaning without gloss from any source."
I hope this will provide sufficient clarification about the applicability of gratuity for an individual person.
Kind Regards,
Manoj
From India, Rajkot
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Supreme Court Ruling on Gratuity for Teachers
The Supreme Court has ruled that teachers are entitled to gratuity, providing significant relief to the teaching community across the country. Recalling its earlier judgment, which had rejected teachers' claims to gratuity, the court stated, "In the light of the amendment made in the definition of the word 'employee' by Parliament with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997, the benefit of the Payment of Gratuity Act was also extended to the teachers from 03.04.1997." This judgment will have implications for all teachers who have retired since 1997. The act was amended in 2009 but was put into effect retrospectively. A bench of justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra noted that they had erred in their January 2019 judgment, as it was not brought to their notice that Parliament had, by an amendment, brought teachers within the definition of "employees" entitled to gratuity.
Conditions for Withholding Gratuity
The Supreme Court stated that the gratuity money of an employee could be withheld and forfeited in case of recovery of dues, such as overstaying in official accommodation. A division bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, in a judgment dated 29 April 2020 in the matter of BCH Electric Limited v. Pradeep Mehra, dealt with the applicability of Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act). It held that Section 4 (5) of the Act will only apply if there are alternate options for the employee under the Act and the terms of the contract with the employee, and the employee is entitled to receive the higher available benefit among the two options.
Clarification on Continuous Service Requirement
Further to that, I am enclosing the reported judgment of the Supreme Court of India, dated 23.09.1980, Surendra Kumar Verma Etc. versus The Central Government Tribunal cum Labour Court. In this decision, the Court observed: "The provision appears to be plain enough. Section 25-F requires that a workman should be in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer before that provision applies. While so, present Section 25 B (2) steps in and says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve months. There is no stipulation that he should have been in employment or service under the employer for a whole period of twelve months. In fact, the thrust of the provision is that he need not be. That appears to be the plain meaning without gloss from any source."
I hope this will provide sufficient clarification about the applicability of gratuity for an individual person.
Kind Regards,
Manoj
From India, Rajkot
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Manoj,
Based on the information you've provided, it's clear that the Supreme Court ruling has brought about significant changes to the way gratuity is handled for teachers and other employees. Here’s a detailed explanation for your understanding:
1. 👩‍🏫 Teachers' Eligibility for Gratuity: The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that teachers are entitled to gratuity. This ruling is retrospective from April 3, 1997, meaning all teachers who have retired since then are eligible.
2. 💼 Employee's Gratuity and Dues: The court also ruled that gratuity can be withheld or forfeited in the case of recovery of dues, such as overstaying in official accommodation. This applies to all employees, not just teachers.
3. ⚖️ Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: This section is applicable only if there are alternate benefits available to the employee under the Act and the contract with the employee. The employee is then entitled to the higher of the two benefits.
4. 📆 Continuous Service Requirement: The Court has clarified that a workman should have been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer for the provision to apply. However, even if a workman has not been in continuous service for a period of one year, they shall be deemed to have been in such service if they have actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months.
In light of these rulings, here are some actionable steps:
- ✔️ Review your employment contract and any employment policies to understand your rights and the benefits available to you.
- ✔️ If you're a retired teacher since 1997, you may be eligible for gratuity. Contact your previous employer or legal advisor to understand how to claim this.
- ✔️ If you're an employee with dues (such as overstaying in official accommodation), be aware that your employer may withhold or forfeit your gratuity. Seek legal advice if necessary.
- ✔️ If you've worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, you're deemed to have been in continuous service for a year. This could affect your eligibility for certain benefits.
Remember, it's essential to consult with a legal advisor or HR professional to understand how these rulings may affect you specifically.
I hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions or need further clarification.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
55Based on the information you've provided, it's clear that the Supreme Court ruling has brought about significant changes to the way gratuity is handled for teachers and other employees. Here’s a detailed explanation for your understanding:
1. 👩‍🏫 Teachers' Eligibility for Gratuity: The Supreme Court has indeed ruled that teachers are entitled to gratuity. This ruling is retrospective from April 3, 1997, meaning all teachers who have retired since then are eligible.
2. 💼 Employee's Gratuity and Dues: The court also ruled that gratuity can be withheld or forfeited in the case of recovery of dues, such as overstaying in official accommodation. This applies to all employees, not just teachers.
3. ⚖️ Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972: This section is applicable only if there are alternate benefits available to the employee under the Act and the contract with the employee. The employee is then entitled to the higher of the two benefits.
4. 📆 Continuous Service Requirement: The Court has clarified that a workman should have been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer for the provision to apply. However, even if a workman has not been in continuous service for a period of one year, they shall be deemed to have been in such service if they have actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months.
In light of these rulings, here are some actionable steps:
- ✔️ Review your employment contract and any employment policies to understand your rights and the benefits available to you.
- ✔️ If you're a retired teacher since 1997, you may be eligible for gratuity. Contact your previous employer or legal advisor to understand how to claim this.
- ✔️ If you're an employee with dues (such as overstaying in official accommodation), be aware that your employer may withhold or forfeit your gratuity. Seek legal advice if necessary.
- ✔️ If you've worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, you're deemed to have been in continuous service for a year. This could affect your eligibility for certain benefits.
Remember, it's essential to consult with a legal advisor or HR professional to understand how these rulings may affect you specifically.
I hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions or need further clarification.
From India, Gurugram
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.
Supreme Court Decision on Gratuity Act 1972.pdf
Gratuity Act-Teachers-Ma dhya Pradesh.docx