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: Can a trainee be excluded from the definition of the term 'employee' under the Gratuity Act?
The High Court states that a plain reading of the Act shows that it excludes an apprentice from the application of the Act's provisions.
Trainees, who perform various duties during the course of their training and are not deputed in a particular designated trade, cannot be called apprentices or learners. The nomenclature of the post is not of significant consequence when interpreting the beneficial provisions of the welfare statute. The Gratuity Act is a welfare statute that only bars an apprentice from the benefit of payment of gratuity during the training period.
Designating an employee as a trainee, extracting regular work from them, and then denying them the benefit of the Gratuity Act under the guise of the employee being a trainee, would certainly defeat the purpose of the welfare statute.
In this particular case, the employee was deemed eligible for gratuity based on specific details relating to his situation.
Designating an employee as a trainee, extracting regular work from them, and then denying them the benefit of the Gratuity Act under the guise of the employee being a trainee, would certainly defeat the purpose of the welfare statute. This query is from Pune, India.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3180Appeal Number: WP (C). No. 2254 of 2020 (F) 2/11/2020
Brief Details
The issue under consideration is: Can a trainee be excluded from the definition of the term 'employee' under the Gratuity Act?
The High Court states that a plain reading of the Act shows that it excludes an apprentice from the application of the Act's provisions.
Trainees, who perform various duties during the course of their training and are not deputed in a particular designated trade, cannot be called apprentices or learners. The nomenclature of the post is not of significant consequence when interpreting the beneficial provisions of the welfare statute. The Gratuity Act is a welfare statute that only bars an apprentice from the benefit of payment of gratuity during the training period.
Designating an employee as a trainee, extracting regular work from them, and then denying them the benefit of the Gratuity Act under the guise of the employee being a trainee, would certainly defeat the purpose of the welfare statute.
In this particular case, the employee was deemed eligible for gratuity based on specific details relating to his situation.
Designating an employee as a trainee, extracting regular work from them, and then denying them the benefit of the Gratuity Act under the guise of the employee being a trainee, would certainly defeat the purpose of the welfare statute. This query is from Pune, India.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question you are asking is more of an informative statement rather than a direct query. However, I can provide some insights based on the information you've shared.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is an act to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, and such other establishments.
As per the Act, the term 'employee' does not exclude 'trainees' unless they are specifically engaged as 'apprentices' under the Apprentices Act. This is because the purpose of the Gratuity Act is to provide social security to employees after a certain period of service. Trainees who are performing regular duties and are not specifically deputed as apprentices should be treated as employees under the Act.
The judgment you've referenced seems to suggest that labeling someone a 'trainee' and denying them gratuity benefits, when they are performing regular work tasks, would defeat the purpose of the Gratuity Act.
Without specific details about the nature of the trainee's duties, their terms of agreement, and the duration of their service, it's difficult to provide a more precise answer. In general, if a trainee's role and responsibilities are similar to those of a regular employee, they should be eligible for gratuity.
If you are a trainee and believe you have been unfairly denied gratuity, I would recommend seeking legal advice to understand your rights better. It's always best to consult with a legal expert or labor law consultant in these matters.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is an act to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, and such other establishments.
As per the Act, the term 'employee' does not exclude 'trainees' unless they are specifically engaged as 'apprentices' under the Apprentices Act. This is because the purpose of the Gratuity Act is to provide social security to employees after a certain period of service. Trainees who are performing regular duties and are not specifically deputed as apprentices should be treated as employees under the Act.
The judgment you've referenced seems to suggest that labeling someone a 'trainee' and denying them gratuity benefits, when they are performing regular work tasks, would defeat the purpose of the Gratuity Act.
Without specific details about the nature of the trainee's duties, their terms of agreement, and the duration of their service, it's difficult to provide a more precise answer. In general, if a trainee's role and responsibilities are similar to those of a regular employee, they should be eligible for gratuity.
If you are a trainee and believe you have been unfairly denied gratuity, I would recommend seeking legal advice to understand your rights better. It's always best to consult with a legal expert or labor law consultant in these matters.
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.
Gratuity Act-Teachers-Ma dhya Pradesh.docx
SBT Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner- Gratuity dismissed employee-LTS.PD F