Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4(6)(b)(ii) – Interpretation: Held: Under the Act, for forfeiture of gratuity, conviction in a criminal proceeding is not necessitated, if the misconduct alleged and proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude – In case of PSU, the employee was proceeded against for the misconduct of producing a fraudulent ‘date of birth certificate’ to obtain appointment – It has been proved that he supressed his actual date of birth – Thus, the appointment itself was illegal – Decision of the PSU forfeiting entire gratuity of the terminated employee upheld – However, in case of conductors in appeals filed by MSRTC, the act alleged and proved is of misappropriation of meagre amounts, Appointing Authority directed to limit the forfeiture to 25% of the gratuity payable and release the balance amounts to the respondent employees. [Paras 11, 13, 15]
Misappropriation – Misappropriation of fares collected from passengers, if an offence involving moral turpitude: Held: Misappropriation is an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude – Even if the amounts misappropriated are minimal it would constitute a misconduct warranting termination. [Paras 13, 15] Words and Phrases – ‘Offence’ – General Clauses Act. [Para 10] Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4(6)(b)(ii) – Words “duly established in a Court of Law” cannot be supplied – Relying on C.G. Ajay Babu case, the impugned judgments held that the forfeiture of gratuity is not permissible under the 1972 Act: Held: The interpretation of sub-clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (6) of s.4 was uncalled for in C.G. Ajay Babu since the provisions of the s.4 including sub-section(6) was inapplicable to the employer Bank and its employee, by virtue of sub-section (5) of s.4 – The interpretation was an obiter making a reference unnecessary – Furthermore, s.4(6)(b)(ii) does not make it a requirement that the misconduct alleged and proved in a departmental enquiry should not only constitute an offence involving moral turpitude, but also should be duly established in a Court of Law – The words “duly established in a Court of Law” cannot be supplied to the provision. [Para 9]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.