SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Misra for petitioner. No one appears for respondents. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed by Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by which the petitioner had been directed to pay the entire amount of gratuity of Rs. 23,190/- along with cost of the case assessed as Rs. 100/- within 30 davs.
(2.) The claimant-respondent No. 3 was engaged as workman by the petitioner company on December 8, 1965. After a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on April 2, 1986 for an act of misbehaviour. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred and adjudicated as Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 1987 and was decided against him on February 24, 1989. A writ petition No. Nil of 1989 filed by the workman against the award was dismissed on November 1, 1989. The workman requested the company for payment of gratuity, and thereafter filed an application before the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority found that no evidence has been led to show that the workman was guilty of any such acts of disorderly or riotous behaviour which may have resulted in any loss to the employer, and directed that the entire amount should be paid to him. The Appellate Authority, in its order dated March 30, 1990 has upheld the findings of the Controlling Authority.
(3.) Sri Sanjay Misra, counsel for petitioner states that the workman whose services have been terminated, for serious disorderly or riotous conduct, or any act of violence, on his part is not entitled to gratuity. The findings in domestic enquiry were affirmed by the Labour Court and that a writ petition against the award was dismissed. In the circumstances, he submits that the workman was not entitled to gratuity.;