Court Upholds Gratuity Claim of Former Trainee, Rejects Employer 's Argument

Background

In this case, the employer, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J., filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employee, Respondent No. 1, had filed an application for determination and realization of gratuity amount for his continuous service from October 12, 1971, to March 31, 2003.

Arguments

The employer argued that the employee was an "apprentice" appointed under the Apprentice Act, 1961, and therefore, the period of his apprenticeship training should not be included in the calculation of his "continuous service" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The employer claimed that the employee was absorbed as a new entrant on October 12, 1974, and was paid gratuity based on that date.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The court examined the definitions of "employee" and "apprentice" under the relevant laws. It found that a trainee outside the purview of the Apprentice Act, 1961, is considered an "employee" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and is entitled to gratuity. The court also noted that the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the employee was an "apprentice" under the Apprentice Act, 1961.

The court further held that the employee had discharged the onus of proving that he was a trainee outside the Apprentice Act, 1961, and the employer failed to rebut this claim. The court also found that there was no break in the employee's continuous service, and he was entitled to gratuity from the date of his initial joining on October 12, 1971.

Decision

The court dismissed the employer's writ petition, upholding the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority, which had determined that the employee was entitled to the balance amount of gratuity from the date of his initial joining on October 12, 1971.

This decision reinforces the principle that trainees outside the purview of the Apprentice Act, 1961, are considered "employees" under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and are entitled to gratuity for their continuous service, even if the training period was not in pursuance of a formal apprenticeship contract.

#PaymentOfGratuity #EmployeeRights #LaborLaw

Case Title: SAIL IISCO STEEL PLANT vs KANAN DAS & OTRS