- (1.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 6th December, 1987 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and an order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 10th January, 1994 copies whereof are Annexures 'G' and 'J' to the writ petition respectively. The Controlling Authority held that the gratuity forfeited by the writ petitioner was payable to the workman. The appellate authority did not interfere. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
(2.) The respondent No.1 was charge-sheeted for fraud, dishonesty, acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company and acts subversive of good conduct and behaviour. After a domestic enquiry he was dismissed from service on 22nd December, 1983. The writ petitioner forfeited the gratuity payable to the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the misconduct of the respondent No.1 was grave and involved moral turpitude. The respondent No.1 challenged the decision of the writ petitioner before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority by the aforesaid order directed the writ petitioner to pay the gratuity along with interest amounting to a sum of Rs.48,111/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date the gratuity became payable until the date of payment. The gratuity was forfeited by the writ petitioner under the provisions of Clause II of sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which provides as follows:- Section 4(6) "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1)- (a) The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated, for wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be fortified to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (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."
(3.) The Controlling Authority in its judgment dated 6th May, 1987 appears to have formulated the following points:- "(i) Whether the charges of misconduct, resulting into applicant's dismissal, involved moral turpitude? (ii) Whether the employer was correct in forfeiting gratuity amount to which the applicant was entitled, as per Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act? If not, to (iii) What would be the gratuity amount payable?";