Gratuity not received
SANJOY
(Querist) 26 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
I joined am academic institution as a teaching staff on December 20,2010 and was in probation till June 30,2012,
As the probation was withdrawn on July 1,2012,the remuneration package(CTC)was revised and Gratuity was added with the clause 'eligible in accordance with PGA,1972'.
The salary I used to receive from that month onwards had the gratuity amount deducted from CTC although no mention of this deduction was made in the monthly salary slip.
I left the job on 10.07.2014 i.e after serving two years and ten days from the day of probation off.
Accordingly I received the full and final settlement but that calculation did not mention what happened to the gratuity amount deducted for two years.
My query is,in this circumstance,may I make a claim for the receive of gratuity which was deducted from my CTC only?
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 26 October 2014
Issue legal notice and claim your gratuity, you are eligible/entitled.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 October 2014
If you have completed atleast 4 + 1/2 years of service then get gratuity.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 26 October 2014
The accumulations in thegratuity is repayable .
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 October 2014
Cost to company and salary are two different aspects.
I shall be enlightened if could be given the provisions under which gratuity could be given to a person without minimum qualifying service.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 26 October 2014
You have not completed the statutory required service to entitle for gratuity.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 26 October 2014
You are not eligible for gratuity.The recoveries made from you towards gratuity would have been kept under gratuity fund
which is repayable on resignation.
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 October 2014
Dear Mr. Sanjoy,
As per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act,1072, 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;
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement.
In your case, obviously, you have not completed 5 years of service. Therefore you are not eligible for any Gratuity either now or in future from the organization.
In view of the above, the question of your making any claim towards gratuity does not at all arise.
It is your misconception, that any gratuity was deducted from your salary.
Adviser-HRManagement
(Expert) 26 October 2014
Dear Mr Sanjoy,
I wish to highlight the following for info of yourself and other writers on this subject:
1) "Eligibility" for gratuity under PGA 1972 arises upon min. service of 5 continuous yrs. Prima-facie, you are not "entitled" as with service length of 2y10d. So, as such, you can never prefer a claim application to the Authority under PGA1972.
2) In the T&C of your appointment, if your employer had stated that you were "eligible" for gratuity, it implies that upon completion of min service (when it happens), you would get gratuity. It does not imply that for short service of 2m10d also, they need to pay you gratuity.
3) As for "deduction" of gratuity from your salary, it is not clear as to what/how was deducted from CTC since you say your salary slip did not reflect such deduction. Then where else could you find such deduction?
4) Since you are not entitled for gratuity by this name, and since you do not have evidence of such deduction, option is not there for you to raise any legal claim under PGA. At most, you can directly write to the Company seeking details, and if any wrong deductions/withheld done from your salary, to seek its refund.
It would have been better if in the first year of service itself, you had raised this issue with the company, since one should know that gratuity can never be "deducted" from employee's salary and repaid while leaving service. Gratuity is a benefit which the employer (wholly on their own funds) has to reward the employee upon/after 5 yrs of service and leaving that employer.
Hope clear. Will be glad to clarify if still anything needed on this subject.
With Best Wishes,
Ravi Naidu
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 October 2014
experts above have elaborated the eligibility of gratuity and definition also.
AS PER GIVEN FACT THE GRATUITY IS NOT DEDUCTED FROM SALARY BUT SHOW AS A PART OF CTC.
Shailesh Kr. Shah
(Expert) 26 October 2014
There is no room left by learned experts to add more. Especially Expert Shri Anirudh and Expert Shri Adviser-HRManagement replied your query elaborately.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 26 October 2014
I concur with Mr. Isaac Gabriel.
GRATUITY IS WITHOUT ANY COST TO EMPLOYEE! EMPLOYER HAS TO BEAR FULL COST OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY TO EMPLOYEE! THE REFERENCE TO PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT IS SUCH CASE IS UNWARRANTED.
The Gratuity Component deducted from CTC(Annual pay package) of employee is payable.
Many of the HR personnel/Legal Cell personnel to please their employers make wrong recommendations and inflate the amounts stated in negotiated package without applying sense.
Many of the HR personnel/Legal Cell personnel have started recommending their employers by applying sense…………………………………sense that has been bestowed upon them from:::::: the employees that have succeeded in extracting payment deducted in the name of Gratuity from Annual pay package (CTC) ,various publications in various forums.
There are many threads on similar query at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/display.asp?cat_id=9&forum_id=49#.VE0UrCKUcb8
e.g;
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Gratuity-deducting-from-ctc--67037.asp#.VE0TGCKUcb8
The querists/employees in various publications have confirmed that eventually the HR personnel/employers agreed to pay Gratuity……………………before 5Y if Gratuity was mentioned in CTC (Annual Pay package).
Many of the experts have participated in such threads. The employee shall have to apply tactical approach, strategy and skills of an able lawyer.
Let us assume that employee completes 5Y of service and retires…………………………..then would employer make double payment……………………….one deducted from Annual pay package of employee and one as a statutory liability that employer has to perform?
Anirudh
(Expert) 26 October 2014
Dear Mr. Kumar,
I totally disagree with your views. It is not supported by any legal provision whatsoever.
Please indicate one success story to support your views.
In fact the answer to your own undermentioned query is sufficient answer to the larger question for the eligibility of gratuity as well.
" "Let us assume that employee completes 5Y of service and retires…………………………..then would employer make double payment……………………….one deducted from Annual pay package of employee and one as a statutory liability that employer has to perform?
What according to you the answer would for the above question. According to me, the answer would be NO, the gratuity would be paid only once, and there would be no double payment.
I think you are scoring a self-goal by raising the question, though the same is quite pertinent and effectively answers the glaring fallasy in your assumption about the CTC and the consequential claim of the employee for gratuity in the fact situation given by the querist.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2014
It is very rare exception when one has to disagree with Mr Kumar Doab.
while agreeing with Mr Anirudh I will only deviate that the gratuity amount is not deducted from pay. It is shown as one of the component of CTC.
AS we know that CTC (what company plans to spend by hiring an employee) and Pay (what company promises to pay the employee) are two different entities.
Employer has to keep a budget for payment of gratuity for the employee when he quits service but not if he quits before 5 years. It is not provident fund where double the actual provision has t be given.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 27 October 2014
Thanks experts for correcting and enlightening me too, I fully agree with Mr. Anirudh and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the author is not entitled for claim/payment of gratuity within a short span of 2 years 10 days service with the employer/company from its own funds and not contributory by the employee, which is a misconception of querist.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 27 October 2014
As you have not served minimum stipulated period you are not eligible for gratuity.
Deduction towards Gratuity fund is your misconception. Deduction towards PF is different. If they deducted PF, it would have been deposited in your PF account which is transferable upon change of employment or you may withdraw it.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 27 October 2014
The last leg of expert Mr. Sudhir Kumar, which endorses the views of expert Anirudh on the subject query is a right observation. In fact expert Mr. Kumar Doab is right one way observing that the HR/employer, in order to attract and employ some good candidates do offer such attractive items by including them in the CTC, however, when the actual pay is concerned they are no where reflected.
the views of expert Mr. Kumar Doab reproduced below is not at all recommended under this given situation:
"The employee shall have to apply tactical approach, strategy and skills of an able lawyer".
The above cannot attract any inference even after tactical interpretation of the company's CTC conditions because it is void as per law.
Expert Mr. Jagga Rao has also properly opined that this not a PF deduction that can be carried over to another new company/employer, so let the author not waste any more time on such useless issues and waste his money too on some false promises by some unbaked individuals.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 October 2014
Mr. Sanjoy,
If you give up without acting you shall regret that you didn't try.
Therefore approach an able labor law consultantservice lawyer and proceed under expert advice of your lawyer.
The latest posts are for me and not for you.
I am right now using handheld device a.d shall respond possitevly.
You may go thru other threads.
If
it is ok with you post where are you located,in this thread or by PM.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 27 October 2014
Dear Mr. Anirudh,
I fully disagree with your views.
My views are neither fantasy nor fallacy nor for self scoring goals.
Your personal views on CTC are not at all
worth it hence are rejected in totality by me.
I have not attacked your views even if I don't concur.
Right now I am out and o occupied. I shall support the cause of employee in this and any other thread.
You may your personal reasons for your personal views but these are detrimental to the interest of community of employees hence I shall continue to suggest the author and employees to outrightly rejects such opinion.
Be assured I shall not be bitter in my posts.
Anirudh
(Expert) 27 October 2014
Dear Mr. Kumar,
Nobody is stopping and nobody can stop you from supporting the cause of the employee. All one is saying is your views are not supported by the existing legal frame work. That's all.
I very clearly stated that your view is not supported by any legal provision whatsoever. I also requested you to indicate one success story to support your views.
You neither pointed out the legal provision nor any success story.
Anirudh
(Expert) 28 October 2014
It is not show of strength to one view or the other that matters.
What matters is, whether the view has any sound legal backing.
Any support or show of solidarity to any view, which lacks legal backing, is of little use and comfort to the querist.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 28 October 2014
I want share my experience.During my tenure as head of the institution,I faced a situation when an employee,after service for 15 years resigned from service.The gratuity fund Manger ie.LIC was asked to release the eligible gratuity.But,the amount remitted every year on behalf of the employee was alone released stating that those who completes the full service alone were entitled as per 'Group Gratuity Scheme'.The employee filed a case with the controlling Authority who issed directions to pay the balance amount of gratuity from the Management and held that the Group gratuity scheme cannot curtail the eligible gratuity and it is an arrangement between the Management and the fund manager.Appeal also failed and the management had disburse the full amount after deducting the subscriptions paid on behalf of the employee every year.So.the queryist can get the amount paid for gratuity for the service period,though he is not eligibel for gratuity.
Guest
(Expert) 28 October 2014
Dear Author,Employee can not claim for Gratuity before completion of 5 years and there is No provision to deduct gratuity from employee.If it had been deducted from Employee's salary or Other wise the Employee could claim the same irrespective of Period since the Deduction of the same is not Legal.It has to be returned with interest and penalty and it is not statutory gratuity and part of CTC and Employee's Right.Fight it Legally as advised by Experts Mr.Kumar Doab and Mr.Devajyoti Barman Please.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 28 October 2014
agreed with Mr Gabriel. The case referred by him has a 5+ years of service so he was bound to win. Company cannot have any agreement with fund manager contrary to statutes.
But in this case ................. facts are not same the employee does not have five years service.
Adviser-HRManagement
(Expert) 28 October 2014
Dear Fellow Experts,
We all have been exchanging our opinions on this subject since 2 days, and each of us is right in our opinions, the common message being that Mr Sanjoy can't claim "Gratuity" as such under PGA1972. An issue of non-gratuity is a separate subject, how to fight with the employer, etc.
Be that as it may. Isn't it surprising a bit that the root of this debate was Mr Sanjoy's query 2 days ago. But Mr Sanjoy is not responding at all, whether he has now understood his misconception relating to "Gratuity" as such. Mr Sanjoy, having raised a query thru' this Forum, should have subsequently thrown more light on the subject, acknowledged the expert opinions received, and thanked for the guidance received. Anyone who raises a query should follow up in this thread, promptly respond for the guidance recd, and thank the colleagues.
However, on my part, I wish to thank all my Fellow Experts herein to have shared their thoughts reflecting their rich experience. Reading such threads enhances my/one's knowledge; otherwise one thinks his knowledge itself was ultimate.
To sum up Mr Sanjoy's query (which he should be reading at least hereafter!), he can't invoke provisions of PGA 1972 at all. If he is convinced that some deduction was wrongly done from his salary (which does not appears so prima-facie), he should take up with his ex-employer (a) as a matter of clarification and seek refund, or (b) if not satisfied/resolved, he could examine possibility of legal recourse under Payment of Wages Act, or Sec. 33C(2) of ID Act. All this provided he re-checks whether any deduction was in fact done from his earnings, or it was just a method of computing CTC, and he mistook between gross CTC and net pay received on hand.
It is all for Mr Sanjoy to come out with facts now. Otherwise, we could go on writing on presumptions. Action under PGA 1972 IS RULED OUT.
Once again Thanks to all for time and effort put in. Mine can be considered a 'Thank you' on behalf of Mr Sanjoy also.
Adviser-HRManagement
(Expert) 28 October 2014
Signature line missing in my last posting.
Ravi Naidu
Bangalore.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
You may refer to a.other thread.
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/employer-contribution-PF-502816.asp
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
I have concurred and again agree with Mr. Gabriel.
First of all the addition or citation or reference of Gratuity (and PGA 1972)after completion of probation period is wrong as probation period is counted in service period.
Even a trainee or novice would know about it.
Reference of PGA is unwarranted as already posted.
CTC is not stated in any enactment applicable to the establishment.CTC is a private term coined by attorneys of employer in HR/personnel/legal cell and has no employee in any way is concerned with it since no private policy of any employer can supersede an instrument of law/statue/law of the land.
When amounts of fruit of labor are negotiated with employee and inserted in any document be it appointment letter or corrigendum or CTC sheet all amounts should come to employee.
Any amount that is not to be paid or that does not have to come to employee is not to be stated in the contract issued to employee........e.g.licence fee,registration fee(that can be as per no. Of employees..........and also Gratuity component since it is to be born and paid by employer alone.
Who would quote a Law of the Land, judicial pronouncement that recognises and legalises CTC?
I shall quote positively reference of many reputed and best HR professionals that have advocated that HR should counsel employer not to include Gratuity in CTC.........and also that Gratuity was eventually paid to employees in whose CTC it was mentioned......Even if employee did not 4Y240D/190D service.
It is not mandatory that employee has to complete 5Y service.Employer can pay gratuity even if 5Y are not completed.It does not require citation of any law because it is what law is, hence it doesn't require citation of any judicial pronouncement too.
The employee who persist gets it as either Ex. Gracia or other form.
I am out and occupied and is using hand held device.The momment I am back and have access to my library I shall post more.
This thread may please remain open.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
Dear Sujoy,
I am sending you the reference of some HR links to begin with.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
As per PGA Gratuity is not payable if employee has woeked for 4 1/2 years.
Still one member/expert has claimed it.
We shall be enlightened if some judicial pronouncement is referred.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
Mr. Kalaiselvan,
Your reference as an 'Unbaked Professional's is evidently for me.
Initially so far I failed to note it.
I failed to understand why would you do it?
You have yourself in unlimited number of threads appreciated my contribution s by way of illustrations, citations,reference to judgement s, enactment s.
I have not shied from taking challenging assignments and succeeding in complex matters.
I have refrained from calling you 'Unbaked professional even if your comments were not ripe,correct in many of the threads you have posted along with me.
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2014
I have Not Noticed and Never Expected It and I could only Say " You Too" to that Expert who had made a comment "unbaked professional".The Experts should make their replies with out commenting on others what ever it may be and Real Experts should not Reply like Anonymous People who had Not Even updated their "About Me" Profile and Makes Comments about other Experts.
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2014
It is Easy to Make Any Such Comment against any one But We Do Not Wish to Do the Same Basing on Our Ethics and Self Respect.
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2014
Normally only for these reasons I avoid the Reading of Replies by Other Experts But it Can Not Be Ignored When Such Drastic Comments were made by people who certify them selves as Supremo about them selves.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 29 October 2014
Dear Mr. Naidu,
I concur with you too on certain points.One is that reference to PGA alone is unwarranted.I have posted it in my first post.
Mr. Sanjoy might be watching the match silently.He shall like many of the employees if he tackles the matter tactfully and of course obtains consults a seasoned Labor Law Consultant/service lawyer and even A Good HR Consultant/professional worth his salt.
He shall not be wasting money as commented by one member/expert.
Where and who else he will consult: certainly not a grocery store.
The querist may not be able to Agitate under Payment of Wages Act if his wages are above Rs.18000/pm of course as per def. Of wages in this Act.
He can not agitate under ID Act since even the apex court has not accepted teachers as 'Workman'.
Since in such cases employment contract, servicce rules and regulations should be examined for this reason too he should consult an able Labor Law Consultant.
He won't get the advice in a grocery store.
If the educational instt. Referred to by him us for private gains and registered under Shops& Commercial Establishment s Act he may approach the Inspector ubeer this Act.
Some trade union may embrace him.
CTC as affirmed is annual pay package.
Of course employer can insert anything and everything in CTC sheet maintained by it alone in its registers be it even a Washroom Soap, but the CTC sheet issued to employee for contracted payouts is different and sacrosanct being promise of fruit of labor of employee.
Please let this thread remain open.
I am alerting my well wishers to find more as required while I reach back.
Nuisance that has been littered in this and other thread mentioned above shall be properly handled.
Isaac Gabriel
(Expert) 29 October 2014
To sum up,the queryist has mentioned about the recoveries made from his salary and seeks advise/clarification about the refund .He knows that he is not eligible for gratuity.It should be refunded if at all the management had given any
classification.But the amount is meagre and not worth for elaborate
discussion.Nerthless,the Gratuity act,bonus act,PF act are only guidelines and the managements are at liberty to pay enhanced packages which has become common with many employers.
Guest
(Expert) 29 October 2014
The Statement "Un baked Professional" is the Present Issue and the person who made it should with draw the same with regret.How Mr.T.KalaiSelvan would feel if some one had Commented the Same to Him.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 October 2014
I cannot think Mr Kumar Doab to be "unbaked professional". Cannot agree to the idea.
Though on this thread I do not have pleasure to agree with his views.
Guest
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dear Author,Who Can Not Think Some One As" Un Baked Professional" What they are trying to Say.Instead of Giving their Opinion How Would They React For Such Comments.
Guest
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dear Author,Whether they are making Fun Stating "I Can Not Agree to this Idea".It is better to be Un Baked with out being Baked and Rotten Please
Guest
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dear Author,Once If they Agree Whether It Would Be Treated As Valid Opinion.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Sanjay,
I have a doubt.
Your deduction may be Provident Fund, and not Gratuity.
Pl clarify.
Guest
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dear Mr.Sudhir Kumar If At All I Comment you the same How would you React Please.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 October 2014
I have disagreed with Mr NJS Rajkumar on number of threads. still I cannot agree him to be "unbaked professional"
at the same time I cannot agree to the idea of anyone (other than me) being called "Baked and Rotten Please". I will except with gratitude if these comments are for me.
Guest
(Expert) 30 October 2014
I am Not Able To Understand " I Will Except With Gratitude Please"
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 30 October 2014
All experts : pl avoid any comments on each other: It will harm all concerned
Pl do not comment, in whatsoever manner with brother Experts..
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 30 October 2014
I once again agree with Mr. Gabriel.
The comments on PF,Gratuity,Bonus are precisely correct.
I concur with Mr. NJS Rajkumar too.
Mr.Barman has suggested in many threads that breach can be effectively handled legally.The querist can approach them with confidence.
So far other than 'Copy and Paste' of the Act no reference on any law, judicial pronouncement,reference has come up.
Although it has been claimed no citation on eligibility of Gratuity after 4.5Y of service has been cited.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dear Experts,
May I request all the experts to stop such unethical comments on the opinion of any one of us, which is unhealthy.
Kindly close this thread as well.
Thanks and Regards
Adviser-HRManagement
(Expert) 30 October 2014
Dr Vashista has been gracious in all his postings in this thread. I agree and respect his view/suggestion to stop comments on colleagues. Since the main querist (Mr Sanjoy, who seems to have joined this Forum just on the day he put his query) is nowhere to be seen, we could agree to end the thread, since the issue primarily related to alleged deduction from CTC towards gratuity (anyway not fully clarified by the querist). Objective of our postings (in general) is to help needy querists, and should be limited to such only.
For our own academic interests, we could exchange our thoughts and experience/ knowledge under a separate and specific subject/ issues as emerged herein, by a new Thread.
Thanks and Regards to all.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 30 October 2014
_Repeated hence deleted_
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 30 October 2014
There has been lengthy discussion that if document showing annual/monthly pay package is termed CTC then all items/amounts shown in it should come to employee.
Even if Gratuity,Bonus,PF,Leave Encashment is not mentioned these have to be paid.
Even if employer has not made any arrangement these have to be paid.
The employee shall not be eligible for Gratuity for 5Y hence insertion of Gratuity for 5Y in remuneration of employee(expenses) can be termed fraud.
No reference to any law that legalised CTC has been made.
No citation for other claims that have been made. Should it be construed that these claims were made just for the beck of it and to confuse?
In another thread titled 'PF & Gratuity' querist remained silent but acted on advice.
Mr.Sanjoy may also act.He will get the refund.
The employer need a shoulder to fire a bullet (blaim) and chest to take it.
Usually blamed are HR,legal cell those opine.
The lawyer is wary of loosing epannlement,retainership.
The lawyer and HR should advice the employer properly.
Agreed that amount is low.
Employer may pay and buy peace.
Employer can pay as per prevailing law of the land.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 31 October 2014
My dear expert Mr. Kumar Doab Sir,
First thing is that I hold you in a high esteem and had always admired and appreciated your vast knowledge especially with regards to labor/employees/employment issues and had promptly concurred with your views after verifying the facts with the reliable sources and I still have great respect for you and your expertise. What makes me sad is that you have not read my post properly and failed to understand the underlying meaning in it. Firstly it was not unbaked professionals, it was unbaked individuals, this clearly meant a warning to the author who may fall prey to false promises made by such individuals to get the desired relief on payment of gratification amount to them who are outside this forum. This was not at all meant to be cited to any personality in this forum and I will never dare to pass such cheap comments on any expert of this sacred platform because I know that how difficult it is to give proper reply to the authors/querists by everyone sparing their valuable time for the cause of the mankind who are in distress and need some legal and moral support from portals like this.
I am very sorry if you thought that I had mentioned it on you or anyone here, it is not at all so. I earnestly request you to read my post once again properly and try to understand what I meant to say. I have not modified my post so far.
To respected Mr. NJS - I am very sorry if you also mistook my comments in the way how you have stated it to appear for you. I don't mind withdrawing my words, but I reiterate that it was not meant to describe anyone of this portal that way and I have explained the reason very clearly above.
So once again I fervently appeal before all the experts to not to read between the lines and imagine their own meaning to my comments. I have explained my stand very clearly that it was with a good intention to warn the author to not to fall prey to mongers from outside roaming around with false promises. This comment 'unbaked individuals' was not made on any individual expert of this forum, so it would not be an appreciable move to roll up the sleeves to become ready for a fight by without even reading the comments properly.
Despite the above, I apologise if anyone has taken it personally without still not understanding.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear Mr. Naidu,
As I Can see thru limited access thru hand held device too, the querist Mr. Sanjoy is not silent and is visiting this thread and website.
Please let this thread remain open and contribute.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear Mr.Kalaiselvan,
I am touched by your humility and you have visited the thread again like a gentleman.It is sincerely appreciated.
I have treated you and companions with respect and honor and value the brotherhood.
I sincerely appreciate that you have been checking and relating the comments to authenticate.This is precisely how it should be.
Kindly contribute on the following too and let us all benefit from this thread including the members and visitors.
You have referred to comments of fellow experts/members and have posted that it is void as per law.....implying..the payment of Gratuity is void since querist has not completed 5Y.Kindly clarify it is void as per which law?
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Although it was impressed upon that employers should obtain mandatory insurance for Gratuity, all employers haven't been obtaining.
Some states have issued notification to this effect to further ensure to protect social security arrangements for employees working with employers that may eventually close the establishment.
The fund managers e.g.LIC have nothing to do with.........if employer has
not issued appointment letter/contract of employment/description of fruit of labor........even if name of employee is not sent to fund manager.
The employer shall have to pay from its own resources if no arrangements were made by it.There is provision for penalty with jail time for .......And the word used in Sec9 is......'WHOEVER'........
The inference that can be drawn is that employer would like to pass the blaim to personnel contracted in HR/Legal cell.........however.....employer personally is held responsible for violations......
Employers can not keep a penny from payment released by Fund Manager ......even if amount calculated by formula of calculation of Gratuity is lower than amounts released by Fund Manager.
Employer shall have to pay even if no amount is released by Fund Manager.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear expert Mr.Kumar Doab, thanks for your understanding and encouraging words and your support. As far as my opinion, I very certainly know that I have read it somewhere hence I had committed so in my reply. I shall revert with my further explanation should I lay my hand on retrieving it within a week or express that my opinion shall be treated as withdrawn after a week's time.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Dear Mr. Kalaiselvan,
Please take your time and post in a week's time or so.We shall be anxiously waiting and shall wholeheartedly concur with you.
Till then the thread may kindly be allowed to remain open.
I will wholeheartedly admit that I erred.
You have referred to comments of Mr.Anirudh,Mr.Jaggarao, and others.
They may be consulted.
May I suggest that PGA 1972 that has been copied and pasted in thread and as per this Act Payment of Gratuity to employee before 5Y is legal, legally valid,..........is neither illegal nor Void.As per sections of PGA Gratuity can be paid to the querist too and it shall be valid and not void as per provision s of PGA.
If there is some judgement contrary to it the same may kindly be posted.
May I request you to comment on eligibility of employee to stake claim on Gratuity in case service period is 4.5 years? So far despite reminders there is no response.If this is either validated or withdrawn as WRONG it shall be good for the community.
Kindly post in other thread on 'Employer's Contribution to PF'
Is web link is already provided by me in my previous posts.
Mr.NJS Kumar may pplease post his reaction and response.
The number of Labor Law Consultants/Service Matters Lawyer's is very low.It is altogether different field.
The scope as is evident is very big.
A lawyer/ConsultantLaw firm has full right to prefer to take Either Employees or Employer's cases but should advise the client properly.
To solicit business tall and false claims should not be made.
HR should likewise counsel the employer properly.
Although employer would want HR to meddle into legal affairs however HR should not and refer to legal cell.
A gentleman like you can have wonderful practice in Labor Law.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 31 October 2014
Thank you Kumar sir for your appreciations and understanding, for your information, I started my litigation career from labor law only but since the field did not appear very prospective in those ab initio days of my practice, I switched over my practice to criminal side and now I concentrate in civil, matrimonial other related filed hence am rather out of touch with labor laws except for certain workmen compensations cases. However, shall try my best to substantiate my opinion, if not let me surrender. Thank you once again.
Anirudh
(Expert) 15 January 2015
I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Sanjoy about the latest position in this issue. Whether he could succeed in his efforts and get the gratuity? This will help me in updating my knowledge.
