AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2006 passed by Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal No. 95 of 2004 and order dated 20.09.2008 passed by the Controlling Authority in Application No. 36(24)/2003-E-6, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
It appears that respondent-employee was the permanent employee under the petitioner who has been appointed on 07.04.1967 before nationalisation. After nationalisation, he has been taken into the service of the petitioner-company.
Subsequently, the respondent-employee has been charged vide memo dated 10.10.1992. Domestic enquiry has been held and the charge stands proved against the workman and on such proved charge, he has been removed from the service vide order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-1).
From mere perusal of the order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-1), it is evident that the concerned employee has been removed from service simpliciter and no order has been passed forfeiting gratuity. Thereafter, he has moved an application being Application No. 36(24)/2003-E-6 for release of gratuity amount before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbadcum-Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The gratuity amount has been quantified for Rs. 2,26,493.00/-, and the same has been ordered to be paid to the employee.
Being aggrieved, the employer-BCCL has moved an appeal being P.G. Appeal No. 95 of 2004 before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. After the arguments and evidence led by the parties, the Appellate Authority has affirmed the order of the Original Authority and the appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2006.
Against the above orders, the present writ petition has been filed. The grievances has been raised that concerned employee has been removed from the service and as such, he is not entitled for gratuity.
It is trite that under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, employee becomes entitle for Payment of Gratuity on the cessation of service. The only requirement is that he must have completed five years of continuous service. Forfeiture of gratuity has also been contemplated under the law, and this is covered by Section-4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Three situations have been contemplated: (i) if some loss has occurred to the employer due to the misconduct committed by the employee then gratuity can be forfeited to the extent of loss. (ii) If an employee has been punished in a departmental proceeding for his riotous behaviour i.e. disorderly conduct or any other act of violence then gratuity can be forfeited. (iii) If an employee has been convicted by a competent court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude, then entire gratuity amounts stands forfeited.
Admittedly, in the present case, none of the parameter exist which justifies the forfeiture or withholding of gratuity amount.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, dismissed.