judgement
Subject : Labor and Employment Law - Gratuity and Benefits
Description :
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.
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.
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.
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
Rajya Sabha Bill Seeks To Criminalize Vande Mataram Disruption Under The National Honour Act
27 Jul 2026
Will Competitive Exams Deplete Delhi District Courts of Judges During Crucial Trial Proceedings This Year?
27 Jul 2026
Bombay High Court Adjourns Defamation Case Involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari And Online Media Platforms
28 Jul 2026
Rajasthan High Court Directs State to Form Separate Wings for Crime Investigation and Security
28 Jul 2026
Gujarat High Court Upholds Constitutionality Of CGST Section 16 2 c Denying Unpaid Input Tax
28 Jul 2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues New Guidelines For Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
28 Jul 2026
Government Introduces Public Examinations Amendment Bill 2026 In Lok Sabha To Curb Exam Paper Leaks
28 Jul 2026
Should Delhi High Court Increase Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts to ₹10 Crore Threshold?
28 Jul 2026
Government Disclosure Reveals Urgent Staffing Crisis Across Numerous Regional Armed Forces Tribunal India Benches
29 Jul 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.