Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Actâ€) gives an employer the power to wholly or partially withhold the gratuity payable to an employee only if the employee’s services have been terminated. Many employers, under the garb of the aforementioned Section, have time and again deprived government employees of the legal right to the amount of gratuity after their retirement on frivolous grounds. But not anymore. On 25 July, 2019 a Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice Nitin W. Sambre, in the case of Shri Shankar Dadoba Naik v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Palghar Division and others, has come to the rescue of government employees whose gratuity have been wrongly withheld after retirement by their superiors on frivolous grounds. Case in a Nutshell: The gratuity of the employee, who was a conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporationâ€), had been withheld because he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry. The employee challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that although he had been found guilty in the departmental inquiry, he had never been terminated from the services of the Corporation as he had never been served with a termination order. Hence, according to him, the order of the Corporation did not attract the mandatory provision of Section 4(6)(b) of the Act. The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that passing of and serving the termination order was a mere formality and was not mandatory to attract the provisions of the Act. The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, while rejecting the contention of the Corporation and accepting the contention of the employee, reiterated that the gratuity payable to an employee after retirement cannot be withheld in the absence of a valid termination order passed against and served on the employee. It further directed the Corporation to immediately release the amount of gratuity to the employee. The aforesaid judgement of the Bombay High Court has successfully managed to reinstate the faith all retired government employees across the country have vested since long in the judiciary to protect their legal rights from being wrongfully infringed by superiors who self-interpret and apply the laws for their own convenience. Trust Legal is a law firm founded in 1999 and, since then, has successfully represented clients before courts across various sectors like Infrastructure, Media, Entertainment, Healthcare, Environment, and also specialises in Service matters throughout the country, creating an enviable niche for itself along the way. E-mail: [email protected] Address: Trust Legal House, C-224, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024
(By Sudhir Mishra- Advocate, Supreme Court & Founder Member of Trust Legal)
Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Actâ€) gives an employer the power to wholly or partially withhold the gratuity payable to an employee only if the employee’s services have been terminated. Many employers, under the garb of the aforementioned Section, have time and again deprived government employees of the legal right to the amount of gratuity after their retirement on frivolous grounds. But not anymore. On 25 July, 2019 a Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice Nitin W. Sambre, in the case of Shri Shankar Dadoba Naik v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Palghar Division and others, has come to the rescue of government employees whose gratuity have been wrongly withheld after retirement by their superiors on frivolous grounds.
Case in a Nutshell: The gratuity of the employee, who was a conductor in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (“Corporationâ€), had been withheld because he was found guilty in the departmental inquiry. The employee challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that although he had been found guilty in the departmental inquiry, he had never been terminated from the services of the Corporation as he had never been served with a termination order. Hence, according to him, the order of the Corporation did not attract the mandatory provision of Section 4(6)(b) of the Act. The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that passing of and serving the termination order was a mere formality and was not mandatory to attract the provisions of the Act. The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court, while rejecting the contention of the Corporation and accepting the contention of the employee, reiterated that the gratuity payable to an employee after retirement cannot be withheld in the absence of a valid termination order passed against and served on the employee. It further directed the Corporation to immediately release the amount of gratuity to the employee.
The aforesaid judgement of the Bombay High Court has successfully managed to reinstate the faith all retired government employees across the country have vested since long in the judiciary to protect their legal rights from being wrongfully infringed by superiors who self-interpret and apply the laws for their own convenience.
(By Sudhir Mishra- Advocate, Supreme Court & Founder Member of Trust Legal)
Trust Legal is a law firm founded in 1999 and, since then, has successfully represented clients before courts across various sectors like Infrastructure, Media, Entertainment, Healthcare, Environment, and also specialises in Service matters throughout the country, creating an enviable niche for itself along the way.
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: Trust Legal House, C-224, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024