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
Salman Khan Files Delhi HC Plea Against 'Kala Hiran'
12 Jun 2026
Writ Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief After Directing Litigant to Civil Forum: MP High Court
12 Jun 2026
Delayed Registration of Birth Certificate Without Statutory Compliance Is Not Proof of Minority: Sikkim High Court
12 Jun 2026
Personal Participation in Contract Work Creates Employer-Employee Tie Under Employees Compensation Act: Kerala High Court
12 Jun 2026
Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Rajya Sabha Nomination Rejection
12 Jun 2026
Insufficient Evidence to Prove Minority or Kidnapping: Gujarat High Court Acquits Two in Atrocity Act Case
29 Jan 2026
Ex-Parte Order Without Notice or Jurisdiction Constitutes 'Gross Abuse of Process': Rajasthan High Court
15 Jun 2026
Mandatory Administrative Enquiry Precedes FIR Against Public Servants Under SC/ST Act: Uttarakhand High Court
16 Jun 2026
Assigning Administrative Charges to Tainted Officials Violates Natural Justice: MP High Court Quashes PWD Order
16 Jun 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.