The roots of the term gratuity can be traced to the French word gratuité or from the Latin term gratuitus, both the terms loosely mean the voluntary payment of money for favour or services. At its most basic level, payment of gratuity is a sum tendered to employees following longevity of service and is generally paid towards their retirement fund. In foreign countries it is also used synonymously with tipping, however, in India it is the former definition that prevails.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 brought in a mandatory requirement for employers to pay gratuity to employees at the time of their retirement. At the time of its enactment, several state governments had brought in similar measures in their respective states. Thus, the enactment of a central law aimed to introduce uniformity to avoid dissimilar treatment to workers in similar circumstances, for example workers of one undertaking that has establishments in different states. The Act is one of nine laws being subsumed in the draft Code on Social Security bill that has been tabled for discussion during Parliament’s Monsoon session.
Reforms to Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
The first noticeable change under the Code is the addition of two extra clauses to the provision on payment of gratuity. While Section-4 of the soon to be erstwhile Act provided for superannuation, retirement/resignation and death/disablement as conditions that triggered payment of gratuity, Section-53 of the Code has added two additional clauses. The first makes fixed term employees eligible to receive gratuity on termination of their contract period and the second is an enabling provision that allows the central government to notify events that can make one eligible for gratuity. The proviso to sub-clause (2) of Section-53 specifies that the amount of gratuity to be paid to an employee employed on a fixed-term basis shall be provided on pro rata basis.
There is also talk of a proposal to reduce the period of eligibility for gratuity payments from 5 years to 1 year. The government has hinted at this proposal as a part of the Code on Social Security.
Problem Areas and Potential Reforms
While the reform efforts being undertaken by the government are commendable, there are areas that need to be addressed for reforms to be effective. One such area is the way companies fund their payment of gratuity to employees. As per Section-4A of the Act and Section-57 of the draft Code, employers are required to procure an insurance towards their liability for gratuity. An exemption may be provided to employers who have set up an approved gratuity fund. Nevertheless, this increases the cost of compliance considerably for employers and the government must consider alternate means of funding gratuity payments [s21].
One possible way of ensuring that the cost of compliance remains low while employees’ interests are protected is by providing different thresholds for acquiring insurance based on the size of companies either in terms of number of employees or the number of establishments in different States.
Another area that potentially poses problems is the proposal to reduce the period of eligibility for payment of gratuity from five years to one year. This is fundamentally opposed to the philosophy behind gratuity in the Indian context as gratuity is seen as a payment towards longevity of service. From a legal perspective it creates issues as compliance needs change drastically and the object of the Act is somewhat diluted. The incentive for employers to provide gratuity is to retain employees who have rendered five years of continuous service [s22] .
This proposal seems to place weight on the monetary benefits for an employee at the cost of the mutual benefits that come with long-term association between an employer and the employee. High rates of attrition are already a problem for several businesses and removing the one incentive for longevity will not help the same. Furthermore, it will only increase rent-seeking behaviour as individuals will work until they become eligible for the benefit only to leave after the same. This erodes the mutual trust between employer and employee and fails to account for the mutual benefits of long-term association.
It is very often the case that an employee takes one year to become fully productive in a new job as it takes time for an individual to grasp the different aspects of a company’s workflow, work ethic and office culture. This is especially true in the case of freshers who often take time to find their footing in a professional setting.
The above may also act as a disincentive to formalization as employers choose to employ unorganised workers who do not incur these costs, thereby bringing their cost of compliance down. This is an outcome that is counterproductive when seen in light of the government’s concerted efforts to promote formalization.
Will the reduction of eligibility period for payment of gratuity from 5 years to 1 year achieve the desired objective? What in your opinion should be the changes made to the scheme of gratuity under the draft Code on Social Security, 2019?
Drop your thoughts in the comments below.
|Disclaimer: This blog is meant for informational purposes and discussion only. It contains only general information about legal matters. The information provided is not legal advice and should not be acted upon without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.|
Simpliance makes no representations or warranties in relation to the information on this article.
8 thoughts on “Proposed Reforms to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”
really helpful. Its really gives us background to put our option on the change.
I don’t think proposed change of eligibility will help organization to survive. Cost of attrition is very high.
But there would be ultimately benefits to the employee. And also they would be feel relax against the harassment being done by the some employer when employees are reaching nearby their gratuity completion. Actually what happened now a days Govt is making social security benefits Act for the employee but the some smart and corrupted employers are seeking and also implementing the deviations with the help of some labour officials.
In case of gratuity what some employer s are doing when the employee reached to the eligibility point of gratuity, start doing mental and physical torture so that he resign the office before reaching the gratuity point. And the employer could be escaped from the liability of gratuity burden. And saved the money for itself.
So I am also in favour of 1 year eligibility so that they can not escape from this liability. If they escape further then there would be more loss to employer in compare to employee. One year of loss is better than that of 4.7 year of it.
I wish this notification which is proposed to amend the Gratuity eligibility to one year is passed. Employers seem to take advantage of the fact by making Gratuity part of CTC and retaining a portion and not paying the same when the employee leaves the organization before completing the 5 year tenure. The law gets interpreted to their convenience. Hence I am also in favor of one year eligibility so that employers cant escape from this liability.
there should not be a upper cap on the gratuity payment. if a person has worked his full life say 35 years in a company, and at the time of retirement, his gratuity works out to be say rs.36 lakhs, then the gratuity payment should not be restricted to rs.20 lakhs. he should be paid rs.36 lakhs, rs.20 lakhs as tax free and remaining rs.16 lakhs as taxable income.
I opine that reducing to one year to become eligible for gratuity would be defeating the purpose of the statute of course. However, even five years is also a very long time. Therefore, it can be mutually made convenient for both employer and employee by making it for three years for the eligibility period for gratuity.
The formula laid down in the payment of gratuity act is quite different from that laid down under the civil pension rules. Still the govt was following a most illogical and unfair practice of revision once in ten years and applying the same amount to the act also for nearly two decades with a time lag of 3 to 4 years
It was thought that this injustice wd come to an end with the amendment carried out in 2017 bringing the revision in the act under the rule making powers of the govt. The purpose of this amendment was nullified by the decison that any revision will have only prospective effect and the delay in notifying the increase.
The following changes should be immediately made
1. There should not be any kind of ceiling and the retiree should get the benefit strictly as per the formula. Removal of the ceiling has been recommended.by the 7th pay commision also.
2. If it is not possible to do so the amount of ceiling should be separately and scientifically fixed ensuring that at least.90 to 95 percent of the retirees.get the benefit as per formula.
3. Revision should be on annual basis and not once in ten years
4. The last pay drawn in the formula will automatically take care of the difference in ‘capacity to bear’ by different.employers
There is need to increase no of days which now are 15 to 90 so that private company workers can get reasonable amount when they retire.this 15 days rule is since back from so many years.it should be changed. there should be seperate rule for private sector workers because remuneration that they get is very low.
Even without an enabling provision the govt can add any event as reasons for eligibility for gratuity.
In my opinion qualifying period for gratuity should not be reduced. Over and above the minimum statutory gratuity based on length of service,employer should be allowed to pay exgratia gratuity based on performance.