The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 do not permit inclusion of circumstances relating to the illegal obtaining of employment as a ground for forfeiture of gratuity.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Kulkarni, J. - The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") by an order dated 11 January, 2019 allowed the application as filed by the respondent directing the petitioner to make payment of gratuity to the respondent of an amount of Rs. 4,72,845/-. Such order passed by the Controlling Authority was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, who by the impugned order dated 29 April, 2021 in dismissing the petitioners appeal, has confirmed the Controlling Authoritys order.

2. The respondent was in the employment of the petitioner. He joined the petitioners establishment on 24 November, 1983. On 29 November, 2012 which is after 29 years of service, the respondent was issued a charge-sheet by the petitioner under Clause 19(2) (xxii) of the Certified Standing Orders, alleging that respondent no. 1 at the time of seeking employment had willfully furnished false information on his age. It was alleged that respondent no. 1s actual date of birth was 1 January, 1950, however, he had submitted documents depicting his date of birth to be 1 January, 1956. On such charges, an enquiry was conducted which resulted in the disciplinary authority passing an order dated 26 June, 2013 against the respondent interalia of dismissal. By such order, the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent was also directed to be forfeited. To seek approval of the respondents dismissal, the petitioner has already approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under Section 332B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. The respondent aggrieved by the gratuity being forfeited under the dismissal order, approached the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, by filing an application dated 23 May, 2014 which was filed in Form-N, as per the provisions of Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Central Rules. The respondent prayed for directions to be issued to the petitioner for payment of the gratuity as per the provisions of the Act amounting to Rs.4,72,845.15.

4. The Controlling Authority, after hearing the parties on the respondents application, passed the impugned order holding that the respondent is entitled to receive payment of gratuity amounting to Rs.4,72,845/-, for the period of continuous service rendered by him from 24 November, 1983 to 4 July, 2013. The operative part of the order can be noted, which reads thus:

"ORDER

(i) Application of the applicant is allowed.

(ii) The applicant is entitled to receive payment of gratuity amounting to Rs.4,72,845.00 (Rupees Four lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Five only) for the period of continuous service rendered by him from 24.11.1983 to 04.07.2013 with the opponent employer.

(iii) The applicant is also entitled for simple interest @10% p.a on the said payment of gratuity of Rs.4,72,845.00 w.e.f. 04.07.2013 till the date of actual payment to the applicant by the opponent employer.

(iv) The opponent employer is hereby directed to pay the gratuity as well as interest as per the above order at (ii) and (iii) above within 30 days of receipt of this order.

(v) The parties shall bear their own costs."

5. Mr. Dsouza, learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned order has limited submissions. His contention is that the very appointment of the respondent was illegal, as it was obtained on the basis of a false documents relating to his date of birth, which according to him was an established position, as revealed in the enquiry initiated against the respondent. It is hence submitted that the respondent was not entitled to make a demand for payment of gratuity. It was thus appropriate for the disciplinary authority to forfeit payment of the gratuity amount. Mr. Dsouza submits that the Controlling Authority in passing the impugned order has overlooked the clear factual position that when the employment itself was illegally obtained, there was no question of the respondent being rewarded by payment of gratui