judgement
Subject : Labor and Employment Law - Gratuity and Benefits
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
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 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.