GRATUITY ELIGIBILITY YEARS - I have completed 4 years and 11 months in one of the firms

Thanks for all of urs kind advices updates. Even i enquired with Labour office mangalore. One of the staff there he said as per the High court law 5 yrs to be completed. It will get rejected if they apply too. I am not aware whether the High courts laws of states are different opinions.

Even our HR dept no response. Exact 1 month pending for 5 yrs; I too never knew that High courts rules are changed in gratuity related. Earlier whenever i google i used to get the update that 4 yrs 7months onwards its eligible for gratuity. So took the steps in leaving the organisation. Now they say latest high court rules applicable. Is it true?

Dear MA-Umi,
The labour office opinion is their own . It is to be thought, How the MAs High court came with a decision.And seems valid. One should contest the case as per the Madras High Court orders in their respective state High Court because chance is existing because the order of the Madras High Court never been challenged in the Supreme Court.

In the circumstances pointed out by various opinions on the query, I have a suggestion to you. You better file your claim form to your office and send a copy to the Competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity act and await the reaction. Once their responses are received you may take follow up action including seeking intervention of the HC citing various judgments on the subject so that the verdict may either be accepted or if necessary can be appealed upto SC. Such an action will help employees like your case.
All the best.

Yes, the employee is eligible for gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, if they have completed 4 years and 240 days of continuous service in the fifth year. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Criteria for Gratuity Eligibility:
The employee must have completed 5 years of continuous service with the employer.
However, as per judicial interpretations (e.g., the Madras High Court and Kerala High Court rulings), 240 days in the fifth year is considered equivalent to completing a full year of service under the Act.
Breakdown:
Continuous Service: If an employee works for at least 240 days in a year (including the fifth year), it is deemed as a completed year.
If the employee has completed 4 years and 240 days in the fifth year, they are eligible for gratuity, even though they haven't completed a full 5 calendar years.
Exceptions:
For establishments following a 6-day workweek, 240 days is the threshold.
For establishments with a 5-day workweek, the threshold is reduced to 190 days in the fifth year.

If the employee has completed 4 years and 11 months (provided it includes at least 240 days of service in the fifth year), they are eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Today i have consulted the labour office in our area. Concerned staff said that 2 cases got rejected by Mrs Jyothi HC Bangalore directly by showing the caluse no 4.

4. Payment of gratuity.—(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his
employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,—
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:


HC Bangalore does not look into the clause 2 in Act & directly rejcted the claims earlier.

However like this type cases how to proceed? Our area labour officers feeling pity on genuine cases which has to be approved; but instead of proceeding for the justification they stopped 2 cases.

Ma-Umi,
The case is very much depending upon the pleading advocate. Your point of argument would be in line of definition of fifth year decission made by the Madras High court. This is the only line of counter for the case.

I may add,
The concept of 5th year service and the minimum no.of working days was deliberated by the Court vide: LALAPPA LINGAPPA & ORS V. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SHOLAPUR [1981] RD-SC 29 (11 February 1981) and one more. Many of these reference have already been discussed in the forum in past as well.
I hope these judgments also can be used to drive home your claim for gratuity. I also believe your advocates have done their home work to cull out relevant references in support of your claims. Relevant texts attached.

At the time of Lalappa's case sec 2A was not in the Act.