-->

WITHHOLDLNGIFORFEITURE OF GRATUITY


• Gratuity, as payable to an employee, can be forfeited only when he is dismissed from service for wilful omission and riotous and disorderly behaviour involving moral turpitude etc. as stipulated under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, hence, withholding of gratuity by the employer of an employee retired from service will not be justified. 
Texmaco Ltd. v. Shri Ram Dhan, (1993) 1 LLN 129: (1992) 2 CLR 256: (1993) ill LLI (Supp) 20B: 1992 LLR 369: 1992(65) FLR 742 (Del HC). 

• Withholding of gratuity of an employee compulsorily retired from service will not be justified. 
Brundaban Sahu v. a.s.R.T. Corporation Ltd., (1993) 1 LLN 129: (1992) 2 CLR 256: (1993) III LLj (Supp) 208: 1992 LLR 696 (Ori HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. 
Gopalkrishna v. Kamataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd., 1996 LLR 306 (Kef HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if he fails to surrender ,mployer's land. 
Travancore Plywood Ind. Ltd. v. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, (1996) II LLj 85: 1996 LLR 397 (Ker HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee dismissed for wilful slowing down of work cannot be Nithheld since there is no such bar in the Act. 
Permoli Wallace Ltd. Bhopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 88 FjR 652: (1996) II LLj 515: 1996 LLR 414 (MP HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld by an employer. 
Lt. Col. A. V. Tiwari (Retd.) v. The Secretary Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, 1996 LLR 1092 (AU HC). 

• Compensation of Rs. 50,000 will be payable for withholding gratuity for three rears. 
Molwmmad Zaheeruddin Siddiqui v. Executive Council, AM.U., 2000 LLR 458 (SC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity of a terminated employee can be done only to the extent )f damages or losses. 
KC. Mathew v. Plantation Corporation ofKerala, Ltd., 2000 LIC 1519: 2000 LLR 1280 (Ker HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee can be withheld only in case of his dismissal and not )therwise. 
KC. Mathew v. Plantation Corporation of Kerala, Ltd., 2000 LIC 1519: (2000) 4 LLN 450: (2000) II LLj 637: (2000) 4 LLN 450: (2000) II LLJ 637: 2001 LLR 123 (Ker HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible if an employee is dismissed for nisappropriation. 
Bank of India v. Kamlakar Vishwambhar Joshi, 2001 LIC 3770: (2001) 3 CLR 32: 2001 LLR 1229 (Born HC). 
, No deductions can be made from gratuity except shortage or assessed nisappropriation. 
P.D. Chiyanna v. Kamataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Bangalore, 2001 LIC 19: (2001) 85 FLR 814: 2001 (III) CLR 846: 2001 LLR 250 (Kam HC). 
, (i) Loss of property has to be ascertained (Ii) Disorderly conduct must be upported by evidence of activities creating misbehaviour to damage machinery, urniture etc. while forfeiting the gratuity of an employee. 
Bapalswamy (since dead) by LRs v. Management ofUsha Martin Industries, 2001 (II) LLj 1060 (Karn HC). 
, Gratuity of an employee will not be forfeited on subsistence allowance. 
PD. Chiyanna v. Kamataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (2001) LIC 19: (2001) 85 FLR 814: 2001 LLR 250 (Kam HC). 

• Deduction of gratuity with employee's consent cannot be challenged. 
Kuttan Pillai v. State of Kerala, (2001) II CLR 900: (2001) 3 LLN 618: (2002) 92 FLR 387: 2001 LLR 1145 (Ker HC). 
A notice must be issued to the employee before forfeiting his gratuity. 
J.P. Micheal D'Souza v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore, 2002 LLR 7 (Kam HC). 
Mere pendency of criminal case shall not disentitle an employee from receiving :ratuity. 
Rajrndra Kumar Nangia v. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., (2002) 1 LLj 648: 2002 LLR 266 (Born HC). 

• In the absence of specific order against an employee, his gratuity cannot be forfeited. 
1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Elivina Samuelbhai Christian, (2002) 1 LLj 342: 2002 LLR 269 (Guj HC). 
2. Radheshyam Khichrolia v. Madhya Pradesh Co•operative Marketing Federation Ltd., 2002 LLR 610 (MP He). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for non- vacation of staff quarter. 
Beer Bala Gupta v. 15- Additional Sessions judge, Meerut, 2002 LLR 619 (All He). Dhanwant Rai v. Delhi Transport Corporatinn, 2005 LLR (SN) 302 (Del HC). 

• Gratuity being a statutory right payable as a retiral benefit after serving an employer for a long period can not be taken away by an agreement between the parties which cannot be reduced but could be enhanced. 
Y.R. Shenoy v. Syndicate Bank, (2003) II LLj 977: 2003 LLR 615: 2003 (97) FLR 812 (Kam He). 

• Gratuity, as payable by an employer to an employee, can not be either withheld or adjusted against the amount of rent due to an employer for unauthorized retention of accommodation of the employer by an employee. 
Bhailal Kalida, Barot v. Factory Manager, jehangir Textile Mills Ltd., (2003) 1 GLR 629: (2003) II LLj 355: 2003 LLR 616: 2003-II LLN 283 (Guj He). 

• For forfeilure of gratuity, a separate order is not required when the dismissal of the workman has been due to riotous and disorderly behaviour e.g. in stopping another workman at the entrance with a dagger and stabbing those who tried to intervene. 
Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Regional I.Jlbour Commissioner (Centra!), Dhanbad, 2003 LLR 692: 2003-II LLj 818 (Jhar HC). 

• Gratuity, being valuable right, is not bounty and can not be countenanced for non-vacation of the quarter by an employee. 
M.A. Shrirahatti v. N.G.E.F. Ltd., Bangalore, 2003 LiC 1352: 2003 LLR 772: 2003-II LLj 1004 (KamHe). 

• The adjustment of penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarter can not be made from the gratuity, as payable. 
M.A. Shrirahatti v. N.G.E.F. Ltd., Bangalore, 2003 LiC 1352: 2003 LLR 772: 2003-II LLj 1004 (Kam He). 

• Gratuity payable to an employee on his retirement can not be set off by the employer for the damages pertaining to unauthorized occupation of employer's accommodation by the employee since the employer can pursue appropriate remedy as available in law. 
v.u. Warrier v. Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun, (2003) 98 FLR 640: (2003) 2 CLR 99: (2003) 3 Mah Lj 168: 2003 LLR 956: 2003-11 LLj 918 (Born He). 

• An employer can not withhold or adjust the gratuity of an employee on the plea that he is unauthorisedly occupying company accommodation and has not paid the market rent. 
Gujaiat State Road Transport Corporation v. Kiritkumar Ponjala Barol, 2003 LLR 1069: 2003¬III LLN 1047 (Guj HC). 

• Effecting deduction of Rs. 8700 from the gratuity of a retired employee for finalisation of TA bills will not be justified as held by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act hence the High Court will not interfere in the writ petition filed by the employer. 
National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. H.L. Mehta, (2004) 1 LLj 656: 2004 LLR 163 (Del HC). • A teacher, though engaged in very nobel profession of educating the young generation but neither performing any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual or supervisory, technical work, will not be an 'employee' under section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, thus not entitled to gratuity under the Act. 
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 LLj 596: 2004 LLR 97 (5e). 

• Even though the Government by its notification dated 3" April, 1997, has extended the Payment of Gratuity Act upon the educational institutions also but the teachers being not 'employees' under the Act will not be eligible for gratuity. 
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 LLj 596: 2004 LLR 97 (SC). 

• The provisions for payment of gratuity as already existing in several States, separate statutes rules and regulations will not be affected by the said judgment disentitling the teachers from entitlement of gratuity. 
Ahmedabad Pvt. Primary Teachers v. Administrative Officer, (2004) 1 LLj 596: 2004 LLR 97 (Se). 

• Gratuity as payable to an employee can be forfeited when his service has been terminated only on the eventualities as enumerated in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 
GujaTat Stafe Road Transport Corporation v. Devendrabhai Mulvantrai Vaidya, 2004 LLR 225: 2004-1 LLj 77 (Guj HC). 

• An employer has no right to withhold gratuity of an employee payable on his retirement on the pretext that he has not been vacating the land of the employer and as such the High Court directed to release the gratuity of the employee forthwith alongwith interest. 
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd" Handwar v. Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Meerut, (2004) " LLj 400: 2004 LLR 232: 2004 (100) FLR 653 (Ullr HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for misbehaviour will not be justified. 
Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kilnpur, (2004) 101 FLR 1063: (2004) 3 LLN 106: (2004) " Llj 348: 2004 LLR 690 (All He).

• For forfeiture of gratuity, the employer must satisfy the Controlling Authority with justifiable reasons. 
Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur, (2004) III LLj 148: (2004) 101 FLR 1063: 2004 LLR 690 (All HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity by the employer will not be tenable when there is no finding about loss or damage to property. 
Eastern Coaljields Ltd. v. Kripa Sankor Somany, (2004) 1 CHN 662: (2004) III LLj 672: 2004 LLR 1112 (Cal He). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity of a suspended Bank employee, on his retirement, will not be justified in the absence of termination for misconducts. 
Valsad District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Krushnalal Milnilal Vashi, 2005 LLR 58 (Guj He). 

• Using of abusive language by an employee cannot be construed as 'moral turpitude' for forfeiting the gratuity. 
Management of Central Theatre, Coimbatore v, (1) Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office a/the Commissioner a/Labour, Coimbatore (2) D. Amirtha Murugan, 2005 LLR 149 (Mad HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity for moral turpitude as alleged against an employee will not be tenable since no opportunity" was given to him by the employer. 
Management of Central Theatre, Coimbatore v. (1) Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office of the Commissioner of L.abour, Coimbatore (2) D, Amirtha Murugan, 2005 LLR 149 (Mad HC), 

• No deduction, whatsoever, except as stipulated bY'section 4(6) pertaining to forfeiture of gratuity on account of dismissal of an employee because of certain misconduct, can be made from the payment of gratuily as payable to an employee. 
Food Corporation of India v. Appellate Aut1writy, under Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur, 2005 LLR 713: 2005 (105) FLR 914 (All HC), 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld merely on assessment of loss to the bank in the absence of an order for forfeiture. 
Baroda Traders Coop, Bank Ltd. v. Mahendrabhai B, Shah, 2006 LLR 390 (Guj HC), 

• Forfeiture of gratuity order, passed after retirement, would not be justified. 
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v, Shivaji, 2007 LLR (SN) 221 (SC). 

• Gratuity of an employee, even after his retirement, is rightly forfeited when he has caused heavy financial loss to the PSU. 
Mashkoor Ahmad (Shri) v. Union of India, 2007 LLR (SN) 318 (Del HC). 

• Non-payment of gratuity by an employer to an employee for non-payment of rent dues by the latter will not be justified, 
Moti/al Sharma v, University of Rajasthan, 1998 II LLj 1021 (Raj HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for occupying residential quarter. 
1. H. Rajendra Pal v, Canara Bank, (1998) 78 FLR 650, 1998 LLR 419 (Kef HC). 
2. Mohammad Shabbir Nadvi v. Jamia Milia Islamia, (1996) III LLj (Supp) 853: 1995 LLR 5 (Del HC). 

• Non-payment of gratuity to an employee in failing to vacate staff quarters will not be justified. 
1. Air India Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 '" the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay, (1999) 1 Mah LJ 740: (1999) 1 CLR 291: (1999) 1 Born CR 426: (1999) II LLj 93: 1999 LLR 260 (Born He): 1999 (81) FLR 900. 
2. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Assistant L1lbour Commissioner (Central) & Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Allahabad, (2000) 2 LLN 1140: 2000 LLR 366 (All HC). 

• Deduction from gratuity can be made for electricity charges and house rent when Service Rules so provide. 
Sardar Sohan Singh v. Union of India, 2007 LLR 763 (Cal HC). 

• For forfeiture of gratuity, there has to be positive dismissal for misconduct. 
Abdul Rowther v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity, Madurai, 2007 LLR 1250 (Mad HC), 

• Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only under prescribed conditions. 
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd, v. PD. Mathai, 2008 LLR 458 (Ker HC), 

• Forfeiture of gratuity causing loss to employer due to the negligence, cannot be faulted with. 
Devinder Singh v. Food Corporation of India, 2008 LLR 934 (P&H HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity not to be interfered because no criminal proceedings were initiated against the workman by the employer for misappropriation. 
UCO Bank v. Regional whour Commissioner (Central), Udai Nagar, 2008 LLR 1008(SN) (All HC). 

• Withholding of gratuity, because of non-furnishing clearing slip for vacation of the quarter, will not be illegal. 
U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. Sukhveer Singh, 2008 LLR 1030 (All HC). 

Withholding of gratuity without hearing the employee is not legal. 
Raghuhir Singh v. Indian Red Cross Society, 2008 LLR 849 (P&H HC). 

• Gratuity of a retired employee cannot be forfeited for retaining official accommodation. 
Hinduslan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Prarnodini Rohidas Sutar, 2009 LLR 24 (Born He). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for moral turpitude oniy if he is convicted for the offence. 
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. !vfahadev, 2009 LLR 138 (Kam He). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity is not absolute but only when the employee has been dismissed for misconduct as specified in the Act. 
Viiaya Bank v. Sri Mohan Das Ramona Shetty, 2009 LLR 198 (Kam HC). 

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited without an opportunity of hearing. 
Viiaya Bank v. Sri Mohan Das Ramana Shelly, 2009 LLR 198 (Kam HC). 

• Forfeiture of gratuity can be to the extent of amount as misappropriated. 
Viiaya Bank v. Sri Mohan Das Ramona Shetty, 2009 LLR 198 (Kam HC). 

APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER

APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

• Deposit of gratuity is mandatory for filing of appeal against the order of Controlling Authority.
Onward Trading Company, Madras v. Dy. Commissioner of Lilbour, Madras, 1990 LLR 28 (Mad HC).

• Employer preferred the appeal within time but without either producing the certificate of deposit of gratuity amount as awarded by the Controlling Authority under section 7(4) of the Act. The Appellate Authority ordered the appeal to be consigned as it was not in accordance with law - Writ Petition - Praying permission to deposit the amount and for admission and decisions of appeals on merit - Prayer allowed - Suitable directions given for deposit of gratuity as ordered by the Controlling Authority.
Sahakari Canna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Baitalpur, Distt. Deoria through its Secretary v. The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Dy. Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, (1993) 67 FLR 99: (1993) II LLJ 1108: 1993 LLR 448 (All HC).

• Filing of an appeal against the order of an authority under the Act, after the prescribed period of limitation will not be maintainable.
Shri Gurudev Ayurved Mahavidalaya Gurukul Ashram v. Madhav, 1994 LLR 894: 1994-11 LLN 552 (Born He).

• The Appellate Authority cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days of the order of the Controlling Authority under the Act.
Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Controlling Authority, 2000 UC 3458: (2000) 86 FLR 312: (2000) 4 LLN 500: (2000) II LLj 965: 2000 LLR 881 (MP HC),

• An appeal will lie against the Controlling Authority if the interest amount over the gratuity has not been deposited by the employer.
Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. v. Deputy Secretary, Lobour Department, (2002) 3 CLR 393: (2003) 1 LLN 215: 2002 LLR 1215 (Cal He).

• An appeal against the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act . shall not lie after 120 days.
Warangal Dist. Coop. Society Ltd., Warangal v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Dy, Commissioner of Lobar, Warangal, (2002) 101 FJR 192: (2003) 1 LLN 976: 2003 LLR 242 (AP HC).

• For filing of an appeal by the employer ag~inst the order of Controlling Authority, deposit of gratuity as awarded by the Controlling Authority is a condition precedent hence High Court directed the employer to deposit the granting amount as quantified by the Controlling Authority.
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vel/ore v. Deputy Commissioner of lAbour (Appeals), Chennai, (2003) 3 CTC 158: (2003) 2 MLJ 793: (2003) III LLJ 650: 2003 LLR 1017: 2003 (98) FLR 1153 (Mad HC).

• For filing an appeal by an employer against the order of the Controlling Authority, the amount of gratuity as directed must be deposited since it contains a condition precedent under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Indian Red Cross Society v. Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLI 802: 2004 LLR 288: 2004 (100 FLR 511 (Guj HC).

• An appeal against the order passed by the Controlling Authority can be filed within a period of 60 days and can be extended after condonation of delay by an other 60 days e.g. in all, within 120 days and not beyond that period since no further condonation of delay is permissible in the absence of applicability of the Limitation Act to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity.
Indian Red Cross Society v. Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLI 802: 2004 LLR 288: 2004 (100) FLR 511 (Guj HC).

• While Iiling of an appeal against the Controlling Authority awarding gratuity, the employer will be liable to deposit the amount of gratuity and not the interest thereto.
Standard Stoneware, and Tiles v. Appellate Authority, (2004) III eLR 204: (2004) III LLI 403: 2004 LLR 724 (Ker HC).

• The Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act can condone the delay of 60 days when there is a sufficient cause.
Commanding Officer, Naval Base v. The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2004 LLR 1044 (Ker HC).

• On appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority, the appellant has to deposit the entire amount of gratuity as directed.
Process Pumps (Pvt.) Ltd., Bangalore v. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Region If Bangalore, 2006 LLR 391 (Kam HC).

• Appellate Authority under Gratuity Act cannot waive the condition precedent for depositing the determined amount.
Prakash Rao v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Hyderabad, 2008 LLR 876 (AP HC).

• Condonation of delay for filing appeal after 120 days of order of Controlling Authority not permissible.
Indian Bank through Assistant General Manager v. Baba Sakharam Kharbade, 2008 LLR 921 (Born HC).

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT


• The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will also apply to employees working in a temple. 
Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri v, Jagannath Padhi, 1992 LLR 737: 1992(2) LIC 1621: (1992)2 LLj 863 (Ori HC). 

• Employees of Municipal Committee of Haryana will not be covered under the Act. 
Municipal Committee Tohaoo v. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity, 1994 LLR 444: 1994(69) FLR 102: 1994-11 LLN 277: 1994-1 CLR 1000: 1994(84) F)R 481 (P&H HC). 

• An educational institute will be covered under the Act. (The Act has also been amended w,ej 3-4-1997 that educational institutions are covered by the Act w.ef 3-4¬1997). 
Shr; Gurudev Ayurved Mahavidyala Gurukul Ashram v. Mildhav, (1994) 2 LLN 552: 1994 LIC 1542: (1995) 2 Mah L) 50: (1996) 1 LLj 515: 1994 LLR 894: 1994-1I LLN 552 (Born HC). 

• Panjarapol will not be covered under the Act. 
Wadhwan Milhajan Panjarapole v. B.D, Bhavasar, (1998) III LLj (Supp) 427: 1995 LLR 18: 1995 (70) FLR 457: 1995-1 LLN 105 (Guj HC), 

• An unaided school will be covered under the Act. 
Ramgopal v. Shikshan Sansthan ja/pur, 1996 LLR 527 (Raj HC). 

• A polytechnic in which activity of imparting knowledge of training is carried on systematically would be an establishment within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Act and its employees will be entitled to gratuity. 
V. Venkateswar Rao v. Chairman Governing Body, SMVM Polytechnic Tanuker, 1997 (77) FLR 428 (AP HC). 

• Payment of Gratuity Act will apply to Municipal Corporation even if it is covered under CCS Pension Rules. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma, (1998) 7 SCC 221: AIR 1999 SC 293: 1998 LLR 881 (SC). 

• However, a notification has been issued dated 22-7-2005 granting exemption from the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act but it will have prospective effection as clarified by Delhi High Court. 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v, Rati Ram, 2008 (119) FLR 828 (Del HC). 

• An employee having worked for more than 240 days in the fifth year will be eligible for gratuity. 
Mettur Beardsell Ltd., Madras v. Regionnl Labour Commissioner (Centrai), Mildras, 1998 LLR 1072 (Mad HC). 

• Gratuity to an employee of an educational institution cannot be denied when the Government has issued a notification in 1997 when the Act has been extended upon such institutions. 
Nitin A. Mehta v. Mehta Prafullaben Valpatral, (2001) 1 LL) 1348: 2001 LLR (Sum) 414 (Guj HC). 

• Coffee curing work will not be seasonal work under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 
Coorg and Mysore Coffee Company v. Deputy LAbour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Hassan, 2000 LlC 3748: (2001) 1 LLj 781: 2001 LLR 214 (Karn HC). 

• A teacher will not be an employee to be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. 
Shantiben L. Christian v. Administrative Officer, Ahmedabad Municipal School Board, (2001) II LLj 1007: 2001 LLR 1091 (Guj HC). 

• Payment of gratuity will apply to the Universities and the Colleges whether affiliated or not. 
D. Laxmi v. Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, (2002) 1 LLJ 69: 2002 LLR 252: 2002 LlC 42 NOC (AP HC). 

• A charitable hospital will be covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act even if it has no profit motive. 
Good Samaritan Rural Development Project v. T.A. Ramaiah, 2003 LLR 151: 2003-1 LL) 357 (Mad HC). 

• Educational institutions will be covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972- 
P.D'Souza (Ms.) Head Mistress, Fatimadevi English High School v. Nymphia Pereira, 2003 LLR 428 (Born HC). 

• An 'establishment' under Payment of Gratuity Act has a wide meaning and includes commercial establishments as well as non-commercial establishments and no limited meaning can be given to the word 'establishments' which has been referred in section 1(3)(b) of the Act hence the indian Red Cross Society will be liable to pay gratuity to its employees. 
Indian Red Cross Sodety v. Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LL) 802: 2004 LLR 288: 2004 (100 FLR 511 (Guj HC). 

• Payment of Gratuity Act will not be applicable to High Court Bar Association since it is neither a shop nor an establishment. 
High Court Bar Assodation v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad, 2004 LLR 1087 (All HC). 

• Municipal Committee is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act as extended to the Local Bodies. 
Rukmani wlo Baru Ram v. State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government of Haryana Local Self Government Department, Chandigarh, 2005 LLR 860 (P&H HC). 

• Non applicability of some other Acts in a Society will not exclude the Gratuity Act. 
MP. State Cooperative Union Ltd. v. ).1. Kashyap, 2007 LLR 383 (MP HC). 

• An establishment, not employing 10 or more persons, will not be covered under Payment of Gratuity Act. 
Zameer Ahmed v. Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, 2007 LLR 807 (Del HC). 

• Gratuity Act will be applicable upon Kerala State Electricity Board even when the employees were getting pension benefits. 
K.S,E.B. v, Mohan Kumar, 2008 LLR 931 (Ker HC). 

• Municipal Corporation, having better pension scheme, is rightly exempted from Gratuity Act. 
Vadodara Mahanagarpalika Naukar Mandai v. State of Gujarat, 2008 LLR 1116 (SN) (Guj He). 
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More