S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING common order dated 18.12.2012 in Appeal Case No. PG 01 of 2012 and PG 02 of 2012, writ petitions have been filed by M/s. Tata Steel Limited.
(2.) THE Appeal Case No. PG 01 of 2012 was preferred by the respondent -workman challenging order dated 07.09.2011 in G.A. Case No. 52 of 2002 whereby, payment of gratuity "without interest" was ordered by the Controlling Authority and, aggrieved by order for payment of gratuity to the respondent, Appeal Case No. PG 02 of 2012 was filed by M/s. Tata Steel Limited. Both the writ petitions have been heard together and, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common order. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are summarised thus: "(i) The respondent -workman was appointed on 29.07.1975 as Accountant in the Accounts Department of M/s. Tata Steel Limited. A charge -memo dated 04.09.2001 was served upon the respondent on the allegation of committing acts of misappropriation of company's money and for falsifying official records for undue personal gain and causing financial loss to the company. The Board of Enquiry submitted enquiry report holding the charges proved. Consequently, vide order dated 20.12.2001, the respondent was dismissed from the service of M/s. Tata Steel Limited. Thereafter, notice dated 02.01.2002 was issued to the workman for forfeiture of gratuity of Rs. 1,94,327.70 payable to him by the company. The respondent submitted his reply on 07.01.2002 contending that the company has not suffered any financial loss due to "mistake" committed by him. However, vide order dated 11.09.2002 the amount of gratuity payable to the workman was forfeited in full on the ground that the acts of fraud and dishonesty committed by him during the course of employment constitute an offence involving "moral turpitude". Aggrieved, the workman filed application dated 19.09.2009 before the Controlling Authority for a direction to M/s. Tata Steel Limited for payment of gratuity with interest. The Controlling Authority held forfeiture of gratuity not justified and accordingly, a direction was issued to the company to make payment of Rs. 1,94,327.70 within 30 days however, without interest. Aggrieved, the workman and M/s. Tata Steel Limited both challenged order dated 07.09.2011 by filing separate appeals. As noticed above, both the appeals were disposed by common order dated 18.12.2012 modifying the order for payment of gratuity to the workman to the extent that forfeiture of gratuity has been restricted to 50% however, with interest."
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.;