Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Karnataka Gramin Bank – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority, Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case facts and timeline. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions and counterarguments from both parties. (Para 5) |
| 3. judicial analysis and interpretation of relevant laws. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. legal rationale supporting the entitlement to gratuity. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
1. Though this petition is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsels for both parties, the matter is take up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner - bank is before this Court questioning the order 31.5.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PG Act, 1972' for short), whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority, Bellary, directing the petitioner - bank to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.13,76,326/- to the respondent no.2 - workman alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from 20.6.2018 till the date of actual payment.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The Respondent No.2 - workman joined the services of erstwhile Tungabhadra Gramin Bank as a Clerical Trainee on 13.10.1984 and subsequently promoted
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 forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a beneficial welfare legislation that overrides internal service regulations. Forfeiture of gratuity is strictly limited to the specific conditions prescribed un....
Forfeiture of gratuity requires clear evidence of moral turpitude; suspension period cannot be counted as qualifying service under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Point of law : Provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are crystal clear that an employee should have committed offence involving moral turpitude in the course of his employment.
Gratuity is a statutory right under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cannot be forfeited without legal justification, even after dismissal 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
