Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE
Aidem Ventures Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Darshan Pitale – Respondent
ORDER :
Manish Pitale, J.
These petitions are filed by the same petitioner-Company against ex-employees. The petition arises out of concurrent orders passed by the Controlling Authority (Labour Court) and Appellate Authority (Industrial Court), under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act). Both the authorities have concurrently held that the petitioner-Company was not justified in forfeiting gratuity payable to the respondents, by taking recourse to Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Gratuity Act and accordingly, while allowing the applications of the respondents, a direction has been issued to the petitioner-Company to pay the gratuity with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum, till payment of such amounts.
2. Mr. Anand Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company in both these petitions, submitted that the concurrent orders passed by the two authorities below, deserve interference, for the reason that the acts of the respondents, as alleged by the petitioner-Company, amounted to acts of moral turpitude and hence, the petitioner-Company was justified in forfeiting the gratuity by taking recourse to Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Gratuity Act.
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.
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.
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 requires clear evidence of moral turpitude; suspension period cannot be counted as qualifying service under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gratuity can be forfeited under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act if an employee's actions cause financial loss to the employer, even without a criminal conviction.
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 i....
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
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
