Dear Mr J S Malik,
Its not only Madars High Court but Hon. Supreme Court has also ruled that if an employee has completed 240 days in the 5th year of his service then he is eligible for gratuity.
"Judgment from Supreme Court:
"Yes, by virtue of the judgment of 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 Industrial Dispute Act and Payment of Gratuity Act are synonymous, the same principal can be adopted under the act also and hence an employee rendering service of 4 year 10months 11days is considered to have completed 5 years continuous service under sec.4(2) and thereby is eligible for gratuity."
Its true that the Payment of Gratuty Act has not been amended to accomodate the judgemnet of the Hon. Supreme Court but at the same time jugdements passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India became law as per Article 141 of Constitution of India.
We should also not forget that when the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended in 2009 to redefine/widen the term "EMPLOYEE", the amendment bill (introduced in Parliament) gave a clear reference to the Supreme Court judgement of 2004 in which the court had widen the definition of the term 'employee'. The act was amended just to accomodate the court ruling.
Not only that though the act was amended and notified in the Gazette of India in 2009, it was effective from 3rd April 1997 just because the case "Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers' Association vs. Administrative Officer and others" in which the Supreme court gave said judgment was started in 1997.
So we just can't say that members are discussing the topic without any valid reason. Till the act is amended and notified people will keep discussing the topic as the present status of the act on eligibility criteria is confusing. People are taking it both ways.
regards,
Kamal