I have completed continuous service of 4 years, 10 months, and 20 days. Initially, it was confirmed by the company that gratuity would be paid, but now the company is stating that "You are not eligible for gratuity." Please help me with how I should move forward.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Reference is invited to the following judgment of the Madras High Court: 1998 LLR 1072
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honorable Mr. S.M. Abdul Wahab J.
W.P. No. 21350 of 1987 decided on 12.6.1996
Mettur Beardsell Ltd. (represented by Its Personnel Manager), Madras vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act), Madras & Others
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 - Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(e), and 2A - 'Continuous service' - Qualifying period of service by an employee - Entitlement of Gratuity - An employee rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days in a year will be deemed to have continued in service for 'one year' as stipulated by section 2A of the Act - Thus, an employee who has put in service for 10 months and 18 days for the fifth year subsequent to the first 4 years should be deemed to have completed continuous service of five years - His claim for gratuity is tenable.
You can counter the HR Department with this judgment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1593MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honorable Mr. S.M. Abdul Wahab J.
W.P. No. 21350 of 1987 decided on 12.6.1996
Mettur Beardsell Ltd. (represented by Its Personnel Manager), Madras vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) (Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act), Madras & Others
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 - Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(e), and 2A - 'Continuous service' - Qualifying period of service by an employee - Entitlement of Gratuity - An employee rendering continuous service for a period of 240 days in a year will be deemed to have continued in service for 'one year' as stipulated by section 2A of the Act - Thus, an employee who has put in service for 10 months and 18 days for the fifth year subsequent to the first 4 years should be deemed to have completed continuous service of five years - His claim for gratuity is tenable.
You can counter the HR Department with this judgment.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Many employers do not bother about labor laws and employment laws, and the managers concerned are also not knowledgeable in these employee-related matters. Labor officers are not taking up the matters in the right spirit to bring about judgments. Trade unions are also unaware of labor laws, and their acts are at a particular stand.
The state and central governments must pave the path for good labor legislations to maintain cordial and harmonious relations.
Such words and sentences are found good in the books of law and HR management only.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The state and central governments must pave the path for good labor legislations to maintain cordial and harmonious relations.
Such words and sentences are found good in the books of law and HR management only.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do not think that anything is wrong with the governments or their officers dealing with the administration of labor laws on this particular issue.
On the contrary, it is the intransigent attitude of the employers and their managers to accept the verdicts of the courts which are disadvantageous to their pecuniary interests on the grounds of misinterpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the applicability of the decisions of high courts based on their geographical jurisdictions. In the absence of a contrary decision by the Supreme Court or any other high court about a particular question of law pertaining to a provision of a central law like the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the decision of any high court on such a question should be accepted and followed by all the persons bound by such law alike. This is the correct legal position. However, the management pundits do not accept this, and the affected employees are also hesitant to go on appeal.
Law will help only those who dare to help themselves by knocking at its doors at the earliest!
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
On the contrary, it is the intransigent attitude of the employers and their managers to accept the verdicts of the courts which are disadvantageous to their pecuniary interests on the grounds of misinterpretation of constitutional provisions relating to the applicability of the decisions of high courts based on their geographical jurisdictions. In the absence of a contrary decision by the Supreme Court or any other high court about a particular question of law pertaining to a provision of a central law like the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the decision of any high court on such a question should be accepted and followed by all the persons bound by such law alike. This is the correct legal position. However, the management pundits do not accept this, and the affected employees are also hesitant to go on appeal.
Law will help only those who dare to help themselves by knocking at its doors at the earliest!
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of 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.