Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : The General Manager, Vs Shri Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Appeal Number : WPL No. 42 Of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/01/2016
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

It was held that in order to invoke Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the PG Act to forfeit an amount of gratuity payable to an employee, the condition precedent is that terminated employee must be convicted for an offence for the time being in force and that offence must be an offence involving moral turpitude.

1. Renowned issue that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether the employer (petitioners herein) is justified in forfeiting the amount of gratuity payable to the employee (respondent herein) on the ground of his dismissal from service without his conviction by jurisdictional criminal Court for an offence involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as “PG Act”) ?

2. The above-stated question arises for consideration in the following factual matrix incorporated herein below:-

(i) The respondent/employee of the petitioner-Bank was charge-sheeted for having unauthorizedly accessed storage data of Saving Bank Accounts of depositors with a fraudulent intention and upon conclusion of full-fledged departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority by its order dated 31.8.2010 reached at a finding, agreeing with enquiry report, that the employee has caused by his misconduct, irreparable damage to the reputation and business of the banks, there has been a deliberate perpetration of fraud involving malafide with unpardonable offence and consequently, inflicted apart from other punishment, dismissal from service and said order of dismissal is said to have been attained finality. Thereafter, on 26.8.2013 the respondent herein made an application to the Controlling Authority for Payment of Gratuity under the provisions of the PG Act claiming gratuity.

(ii) The Controlling Authority issued notices in Form-O under Rule 11(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 asking the parties to appear before him. In reply to the notice, the petitioner-Bank submitted that the respondent herein was dismissed from service of the petitioner-Bank for commission of misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, therefore, Section 4(6) (b) (ii) of the PG Act squarely attracts and gratuity payable to the respondent herein stands forfeited and as such, when services of the respondent-employee have been terminated for an offence involving moral turpitude, gratuity has rightly been forfeited by the petitioner-Bank.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031