- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority finding that the employee was entitled to the payment of gratuity by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Appellate Authority, set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority which took note against the provisions of the Punjab Financial Corporation (Payment of Gratuity of Employees) Regulation of 1964 that denied to an employee a claim for gratuity, if his services had been terminated as a result of an enquiry for a misconduct It is an admitted case that the petitioner was charged with certain irregularities in not securing appropriate securities from a borrower that exposed the Financial Corporation to serious financial crisis. The enquiry officer held that all the charges had been proved and proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service. The appeal filed was also dismissed. It appears that the employee has filed a Civil Suit challenging the order of dismissal and the case is still pending.
(2.) When a claim for gratuity was made by the employee, it was denied to the employee by the petitioner Corporation by resort to 1964 Regulations as dis-entitling him to claim gratuity. This application of Regulation was found by the Appellate Authority to be not justified and it held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 restricted the forfeiture only to circumstances spelt out under Section 4 (6) of the Act that required proof of damage or loss or destruction arising out of willful omission or negligence. If there was no toss or damage or destruction to property, even a mere negligent act that may have resulted in termination of service cannot be a bar to secure gratuity.
(3.) There is a seeming conflict between what is contained in 1964 Regulations and what is contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act The 1964 Regulation Clause 5 states that no gratuity will be granted to in the case of an employee had not completed 5 years service or had been dismissed from service for any misconduct. The reproduction of this provision is relevant for the case :- Gratuity When not admissible 5 (1) No gratuity will be granted to in the case of an employee (a) If he has not completed service in the Corporation for a minimum period of 5 years or if he or she has been dismissed from services of the Corporation for any misconduct The restrictive clause found under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is also reproduced :- S 4(6) The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated of any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction or, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited 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 involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.;