Ram Kumar Singh vs M/s. Bharat Cocking Coal Limited and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.9.2012 passed by the respondent no. 4. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad-cum-Appellate Authority, Shram Bhawan in P.G. Appeal No. 46 of 2012, where by the original order passed by respondent no. 3, The Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum- Controlling Officer, Shram Bhawan allowing him only 75% gratuity, has been upheld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was entitled for full gratuity having remained in service for 40 years till he was dismissed on 21.7.2011, in view of his conviction in R.C. Case No. 5A/90D registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation vide judgment dated 24.3.2011. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of conviction is already under challenge in Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 290 of 2011, which is pending before this Court where the petitioner is also on bail.

Counsel for the respondent-B.C.C.L., however, opposes the prayer by submitting that the respondents are fully justified in curtailing the gratuity of the petitioner as he has been terminated from service for an act of moral turpitude on being convicted in a R.C. Case No. 5A/90D, which has been prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. For better appreciation, the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is quoted hereunder:

4(6)(b) The gratuity payable to an employee (may be wholly or partially forfeited)-

(i) If the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or

(ii) If the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.

From perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the gratuity has not been paid to the petitioner on the ground of conviction of the petitioner in a case prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation Court for offence involving moral turpitude and subsequent dismissal from service on account of such conviction. The respondents are, therefore, permitted to do so in view of the specific provisions of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) quoted hereinabove.

In that view of the matter, I do not find reason to interfere in the impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, if the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the appeal preferred against his conviction, he may invoke the forum of the appropriate authority for payment of his rest of the gratuity, if found permissible in law.