Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED VS PRADEEP MEHRA...
BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED VS PRADEEP MEHRA - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 356 : An employee with less than 5 years of service is not eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as Section 4(1) mandates a minimum of five years of continuous service for entitlement. However, Section 4(5) of the Act allows an employee to claim gratuity under a more beneficial arrangement (such as a trust deed, award, agreement, or contract) if it provides better terms than those under the Act. In this case, the Trust Deed and Scheme of the company did not override the statutory requirement of five years of service, as the scheme was intended for employees not covered by the Act. Therefore, even if the trust deed or scheme offers more favorable terms, an employee with less than five years of service remains ineligible for gratuity unless the trust deed explicitly provides otherwise. The court emphasized that Section 4(5) applies only when better terms are available and extendable to the employee, but it does not waive the five-year service requirement for those covered by the Act.Checking relevance for General Manager, Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank VS C. T. Janardhanan Executive Officer (Retd)...
General Manager, Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank VS C. T. Janardhanan Executive Officer (Retd) - 2018 0 Supreme(Ker) 646 : Under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee is entitled to receive better terms of gratuity as per a trust deed or scheme, even if they have less than 5 years of service. The Full Bench in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. held that when gratuity is linked with an LIC policy (or any trust deed), it constitutes ''''a right to receive better terms of gratuity'''' under Section 4(5). This means that if a trust deed provides for gratuity payment regardless of the 5-year service condition, such terms prevail over the general requirement of 5 years under Section 4(1). Therefore, an employee with less than 5 years of service may still be eligible for gratuity if the trust deed provides for it.Checking relevance for Kerala Forest Research Institute VS Renuka...
Kerala Forest Research Institute VS Renuka - 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1652 : Under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee has the right to receive better terms of gratuity under any award, agreement, or contract with the employer. The document confirms that the terms of gratuity, including eligibility conditions, are governed by the Rules and Regulations of the employer (K.S.C.S.T.E.), which provide for gratuity payment at the rate of half-month''''s emoluments for each completed year of service, but only if the employee has rendered not less than five years of service. This indicates that even though the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, generally requires five years of service for eligibility, the trust deed or contractual terms (as per Section 4(5)) may provide for better terms, but in this case, the trust deed itself imposes a five-year service condition. Therefore, an employee with less than five years of service is not eligible for gratuity under the trust deed of the company, as the trust deed explicitly requires a minimum of five years of service, and Section 4(5) does not override this condition but only preserves the right to better terms if they exist in the contract.Checking relevance for D. T. C. Retired Employees Association VS Delhi Transport Corporation...
Checking relevance for UNION BANK OF INDIA VS C. G. AJAY BABU...
Checking relevance for Beed District Central Co-operative Bank LTD. VS State Of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Workmen Of Metro Theatre, Bombay VS Metro Theatre LTD. Bombay...
Workmen Of Metro Theatre, Bombay VS Metro Theatre LTD. Bombay - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 363 : Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allows an adjudicator (such as a Labour Tribunal or Arbitrator) to grant better terms of gratuity than those prescribed under the Act, even if the employee has less than 5 years of service. This is confirmed by a judicial decision where the adjudicator (Shri B. B. Tambe) in Reference (VA) held that under Section 4(5), better terms of gratuity can be granted to workmen, including those with less than 5 years of service. The court acknowledged this and accepted that employees in Metro Cinema would also be entitled to such better terms of gratuity as set out in Para 140 of the award dated 27-6-1980. Thus, an employee with less than 5 years of service may be eligible for gratuity payment as per a trust deed or award that provides more favorable terms under Section 4(5).Checking relevance for LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN...
Checking relevance for Gorakh Nath Dube VS Hari Narain Singh...
Checking relevance for Government Of Orissa VS Ashok Transport Agency...
