Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.72 seconds)Section 2A in THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 [Entire Act]
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
M/S. Budge Budge Company Limited vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 October, 2023
15. Herein the Court decided in favour of workman on the finding that the
suspension of work in that case was not for the fault of the workman.
Lalappa Lingappa & Ors vs Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., ... on 11 February, 1981
15. Casual workmen do not normally remain
on any payroll on record of a Company. It is only
permanent workman who are on the muster roll of
the Company. To make a Badli workman entitled to
gratuity for the aforesaid 4 years where admittedly
he has not been engaged for 240 days in a year
whether it is the fault of the workman or otherwise,
would be completely fallacious in view of the
succinct explanation of the status of the Badli
workman in the Lalappa Lingappa case (supra).
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co., Ltd vs Workmen And Ors. Etc on 27 September, 1968
16. As regards badli employees, there can be
no doubt that they are not in uninterrupted service
and, therefore, they do not fall within the
substantive part of the definition "continuous
service" in Section 2(c), but are covered by
Explanation I. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v.
Workmen [AIR 1970 SC 919 : (1969) 2 SCR 307,
338 : (1969) 2 LLJ 755] the court, while dealing
with a gratuity scheme, repelled the contention
urged on behalf of the badli employees that since
they had to register themselves with the
management of the textile mills and were required
every day to attend the mills for ascertaining
whether work would be provided to them or not,
the condition requiring that they should have
worked for not less than 240 days in a year to
qualify for gratuity was unjust and observed:
M/S. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., Calcutta vs Its Workmen on 3 March, 1961
(emphasis added)
The legislature has departed from the meaning
given by this Court in the above case to the
expression "continuous service" by incorporating
the words "not due to any fault on the part of the
employee concerned", to give that expression a
restricted legal connotation.
Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training ... on 5 March, 2008
The contention of the appellant is that the burden of
proof of rendering continuous service lies on the
employee. On the other hand, the employee and
Respondent number 1 refutes and says that the burden
is on the employer, being custodian of the records.
There are several judgments in this regard but reference
may be drawn to the observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in para 12, in the case of Sita
Ram & Ors vs Mati Lal Nehru Farmers Training
Institute (AIR 2008 SC 1955) which goes as under-
"12. Although at one point of time the burden of proof
used to be placed on the employer, in view of a catena
of recent decisions, it must be held that the burden of
proof is on the workman to show that he has completed
240 days in a year".
Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra on 25 June, 1996
It is seen that the appellant has not considered the
service during the year 2012, as continuous, on the
ground that the workman did not work for 240 days in
that year. Now, with the amendment of The Payment of
4
Gratuity Act, 1972 (by Act 26 of 1984, w.e.f
11/02/1981), a new section has been inserted (Sec.2A),
re-defining "continous service". Therefore, a perinanent
workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a
period unless a "brenk in service for that period has
been declared by the employer. The appellent did not
produce any evidence to prove that there was "break in
service" of the workman during that year. Reference
inay be drawn to Gujarat High Court judgement in the
case of Mafatlal Fine Spinning and Mfg. Conipany Ltd.
vs Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, which says,
"If the effect of this amendment is to be considered on
the view which had been taken by the Supreme Court in
Lalappa Lingoppa's case, it appears that through this
amendment, what was denied to the permanent
employees an account of their working for a period of
less than 240 days in a year by remaining absent from
duty without leave, has been granted so as to include
such period for the purposes of continuous service and
thus, the benefit which stood deied to the permanent
employees was taken care of in terms of the amended
Section 2A and now even the period of obsence without
leave in case of permanent employee has to be treated
as a part of continuous service for the purposes of
payment of gratuity under Section 4 of the Act".
Moreover, in the year 2012, the workman was
superannuated on 01/07/2012, after rendering six
months of service in that year. Hence, it is decided that
the worknian rendered continuous service in that year
and is eligible to get gratuity under Sec. 4 of The
Gratuity Act for services rendered during that year.
Hence the workman rendered 14 years of continuous
service from 1973 to 2010 and 02 years from
01/08/2010 to 01/07/2012. The workman rendered 16
years of continuous service during the entire service
period.
Bank Of India vs Central Government Industrial ... on 16 June, 2010
i. Bank of India vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal &
Ors., 2010 SCC Online Cal 1718.