Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. KAMESWAR RAO, T.M.NADAF
Karnataka Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority, Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of gratuity application and misconduct. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on entitlement to gratuity under regulations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of regulatory framework. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 18) |
| 4. observations on discrimination between employee categories. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. conclusion on dismissing the appeal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
V KAMESWAR RAO, J.
The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Karnataka Gamin Bank challenging the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15460/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein by stating in Paragraphs-17, 18 & 19 as under:-
“17. The Apex Court in the case of C.G. Ajay Babu , stated supra, has held at paragraph Nos.17 and 18 as under:-
"17. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank has contended that the conduct of the respondent employee, which leads to the framing of charges in the departmental proceedings, involves moral turpitude, we are afraid the contention cannot be appreciated. It is not the conduct of a person involving moral turpitude that is required for forfeiture of gratuity but the conduc
Gratuity forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
Gratuity cannot be forfeited unless the termination arises from misconduct causing financial loss, further requiring conviction for moral turpitude for such an action to be justified.
Gratuity is a statutory right under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cannot be forfeited without legal justification, even after dismissal for misconduct.
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
Gratuity cannot be withheld in cases of termination by punishment without evidence of financial loss to the employer.
An employer cannot forfeit an employee's gratuity without quantifying the financial loss or providing reasons for the finding of financial loss, as per Regulation 12 of the Canara Bank Employees' Gra....
Forfeiture of gratuity requires clear evidence of moral turpitude; suspension period cannot be counted as qualifying service under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
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
