As per case facts, an employee joined as a fitter and resigned after over ten years of continuous service. He claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which ... the employer initially rejected. The Controlling Authority allowed his claim, and this decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court, while agreeing with the interpretation of the Act, struck down the provision entitling gratuity after five years of service upon retirement or resignation, deeming it an unreasonable restriction on the employer's business and thus violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The High Court also denied the gratuity previously awarded. The Union of India and the aggrieved employee then appealed this decision. The question arose whether the five-year qualifying service period for gratuity under the Act is an unreasonable restriction on an employer's right to carry on business and thereby violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, clarifying that Article 19(1)(g) only applies if the qualifying period imposes an unbearable financial burden or if the provision isn't a minimum service condition. It ruled that the provision for a short qualifying period is not inherently invalid and cannot be generally struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(g), affirming that gratuity is a welfare measure and a reasonable restriction on business rights.