This petition challenges an order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. The Petitioner is an exemployee of the Respondent bank. The Petitioner was chargesheeted for misconduct alleging misappropriation of funds. It is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner, whilst working as a manager in Sanjani Branch of the bank, fraudulently and by misuse of his office, opened a bogus saving account on 1 June 1995 in the name of a fictitious client and caused a sum of Rs.10,000/to be deposited in the account. He, thereafter, on 8 June 1995, fraudulently withdrew that amount by executing a bogus withdrawal slip in his own handwriting and by forging the signature of the accountholder. He also caused to be deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/in the same account on 21 June 1995 and withdrew the said sum on 27 June 1995 again by writing a bogus withdrawal slip and forging the signature of the account holder. On 21 June, 1995, the Petitioner caused one more bogus saving account in the name of B.A. Patil and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in that account on 21 June 1995 and once again, withdrew the said sum from the account by executing a bogus withdrawal slip in his own handwriting and forging the signature of the account holder thereon. It was the Respondent's case that accordingly, a total sum of Rs.33,000/was fraudulently misappropriated by the Petitioner. After a duly conducted departmental enquiry, where the Petitioner was found guilty of the charge of misconduct, the services of the Petitioner were terminated on 6 July 1996 by giving one month pay in lieu of notice. Being aggrieved by the termination order, the Petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice, being Complaint (ULP) No.5 of 1997, before the Labour Court at Kolhapur. The complaint was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. On 24 June 2008, the Petitioner filed an application in Form-I for payment of gratuity. Since gratuity was not paid to him despite his application, on 2 July 2008 he preferred an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act before the controlling authority under the Act, being Application (PGA) No.63 of 2008. During the pendency of this application, a show cause notice was issued by the Respondent bank to the Petitioner for forfeiture of the amount of gratuity. After considering the Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, by its notice dated 28 August 2008, the Respondent forfeited the gratuity payable to the Petitioner under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The controlling authority, by its order dated 15 July 2005, allowed the Petitioner's application and directed the Respondent bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,404/to the Petitioner towards gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of his application and till realisation. This order was challenged by the Respondent bank before the appellate authority under the Act. The appellate authority, by its judgment dated 9 December 2015, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the controlling authority. The order of the appellate authority is challenged in the present petition.

3. Mr.Chavan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, makes three submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that the appellate authority could not have permitted forfeiture of gratuity by the Respondent, since the Petitioner was not convicted of any offence for the time being involving moral turpitude. Learned Counsel submits that in order to invoke Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act for forfeiture of gratuity, conviction of the concerned employee for the time being in force of an offence involving moral turpitude, is a condition precedent. Learned Counsel, relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 663 and of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of The General Manger, UCO Bank, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava, 2016 DGLaw(Chh) 1 in this behalf. Learned Couns