I have completed continue service of 4Years 10months and 20 days, 1st it was confirmed by company gratuity will be paid but now company is telling "Your are not eligible for gratuity" pls help me, how I will move forward.
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
Reference is invited to the following judgement of the Madras High Court:
1998 LLR 1072
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. S.M. Abdul Wahab J.
W.P. No. 21350f1987 decided on 12.6.1996
Mettur BeardseU 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 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 judgement.
From India, Mumbai
14221998 LLR 1072
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. S.M. Abdul Wahab J.
W.P. No. 21350f1987 decided on 12.6.1996
Mettur BeardseU 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 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 judgement.
From India, Mumbai
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 also unaware of labor laws and their acts are at a particular stand.
the state and central governments must pave to pave the path for good labor legislations to maintain the cordial and harmonious relations.
Such words and sentences are found good in the books of law and HR management. only.
From India, Hyderabad
the state and central governments must pave to pave the path for good labor legislations to maintain the cordial and harmonious relations.
Such words and sentences are found good in the books of law and HR management. only.
From India, Hyderabad
I do not think that anything 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 ground of misinterpretation of Constitutional provisions relating to applicability of the decision 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 question should be accepted and followed by all the persons bound by such law alike is the correct legal position. But, still 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
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 ground of misinterpretation of Constitutional provisions relating to applicability of the decision 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 question should be accepted and followed by all the persons bound by such law alike is the correct legal position. But, still 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
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Gratuity has to be paid after employee quits (TOI - 27-03-2021)_1.j pg
FORM-F-NOMINATI ON OF GRATUITY.pdf
Gratuity Form I.doc