Payment of gratuity
DILIP KULKARNI
(Querist) 23 June 2015
This query is : Resolved
Myself Dilip Balvant Kulkarni joined in Mitcon Consultancy & Engg. Services, Pune as Sr. Vice President on 7th Sept. 2006.
My date of birth is 18th Dec. 1952.
As per the service conditions date of superannuation is on completion of age of 58. In my case it would have been 18th Dec. 2010. However , Mitcon management extended my services beyond the date of super annuation and I retired from the service as at the close of business on 31st March 2015.
I completed total continuous service of 8 years 6 months and 24 days as on date of my retirement i.e. 31st March 2015.
However, I was denied payment of gratuity on the that I have not completed minimum five years of service as on date of super annuation i.e. 18th Dec. 2010, though my services were extended by the Mitcon management upto 31st March 2015.
Please advise me
1. Whether I am eligible for gratuity considering my total service upto 31st March 2015 ( 8 years 6 months & 24 days)including extension in service.
2. I am eligible , what period will be considered for calculation of gratuity.
Thanking you,
Guest
(Expert) 23 June 2015
Company's decision is right.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 23 June 2015
Hope you have evidence/letter of extension of service.
The payment and the amount of gratuity depend upon length of service.
It is also clear from the post of the querist that Gratuity was not paid on attaining age of superannuation.
The retirement date has exceeded the date of superannuation by the sweet will of employer. In other words the employment has not ceased on reaching age of superannuation and employee has retired after extension of service by the sweet will of the employer………….In other words the reemployment from date of superannuation was given by free will of the employer and without any break in service.
Hence { Sec;2(r), 4(1) (a,b)} Gratuity should be payable for 9years (8 years 6 months and 24 days).
Have you submitted FormI and has the employer responded in writing?
The following judgement of
Madras High Court:
Jeevanlal (1929) Limited And Ors. vs Controlling Authority Under The ... on 19 June, 1981
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1399016/?type=print
may also be looked into…………
23. In our opinion, the contentions of the petitioner are clearly untenable. Though the employees had reached the age of superannuation before the Act came into force, they were given re-employment in such a manner that were there was no break in their services. Thus purely from a factual point of view the employees continued to serve the petitioner-company uninterruptedly. Secondly; it is common ground that on the employees reaching the age of superannuation and ceasing to be regular employees of the company
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 24 June 2015
Submit your claim.
If not paid consult local service law expert lawyer.
