Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Western Coal Fields Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Manohar Govinda Fulzele – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. forfeiture of gratuity (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. a division bench of this court (Para 5) |
| 3. the requirement of the statute (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question raised in the above cases is the permissibility of forfeiture of gratuity, in the event of termination of service on misconduct, which can be categorised as an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude; without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal proceeding having been initiated.
3. The appellant in one of the appeals is a Public Sector Undertaking1 [For brevity ‘PSU’] on whose behalf learned Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta appears. The other appeals are by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation2 [For brevity ‘MSRTC’] for whom Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, learned Standing Counsel appears. Impugned judgments found the forfeiture of gratuity to be not permissible under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (the Act) relying on the decision of this Court in Union Bank of India and Others vs. C.G. Ajay Babu, (2018) 9 SCC 529. On behalf of the contesting respondent in the appeal filed by th
Forfeiture of gratuity for misconduct involving moral turpitude is permissible without a criminal conviction, emphasizing the discretion of the appointing authority in determining the extent of forfe....
Forfeiture of gratuity can only occur upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence involving moral turpitude, as established in Union Bank of India v. C. G. Ajay Babu and Other....
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires a conviction for moral turpitude; absence of such conviction renders forfeiture unjustified.
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot apply to acts occurring after employment cessation, and necessitates prior notice to the employee.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Hans Raj Mutreja For the Respondent : Tej Kumar Malik
Forfeiture of gratuity requires clear evidence of moral turpitude; suspension period cannot be counted as qualifying service under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gratuity forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
