Forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 requires a co-relation between the exception and the extent of loss or damage suffered by the employer.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 13th April, 2022, passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), as also the order dated 15th April, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority as provided for under the said Act.

2. The petitioner claims that the husband of the respondent no. 4 was an employee of the petitioner. Unfortunately, by reasons of financial irregularities, the respondent no. 4 was terminated from service on 31st July, 2012. Subsequently, on 23rd August, 2012, a complaint was lodged with the local police station which was treated as FIR dated 23rd August, 2012. In the said FIR, along with the respondent no.4’s husband, four other persons had been named. The complaint based on which the aforesaid FIR was lodged has, however, not been made part of the writ application. The same has also not been disclosed during the hearing.

3. The husband of the respondent no. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased employee”) died on 14th March, 2014. Subsequent to his death, the respondent no. 4, in her capacity as the nominee of the deceased employee, had filed an application in Form-‘I’, requesting the petitioner to make payment of the gratuity payable to her on account of her deceased husband. The said application in Form-‘I’ was not responded to by the petitioner. This prompted the respondent no. 4 to file an application in Form-‘J’ before the Controlling Authority, inter alia, claiming that the deceased was an employee of the petitioner until his death, i.e., 14th March, 2014, and that the deceased employee had already completed 10 years of the service with the petitioner.

4. It appears that the petitioner had responded to the said notice in Form-‘J’, by a communication dated 19th December, 2017, addressed to the Controlling Authority, inter alia, claiming therein that notwithstanding the deceased being an employee of the petitioner, the deceased employee was terminated on 31st July, 2012 due to fraudulent activity. It was further, inter alia, notified that an FIR had been lodged against the deceased employee on 23rd August, 2012, and the matter was pending with the Court. A Further communication dated 9th August, 2018, appears to have been issued by the petitioner, wherein, it had been alleged that since, the deceased employee was terminated due to fraudulent activity and cheating, he is not eligible for gratuity. The respondent no. 4 had, however, disputed the said contention and had filed an objection, inter alia, contending that her husband had died in harness on 14th March, 2014.

5. Before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner was represented by its authorised representative who had also deposed on its behalf. On contested hearing, the Controlling Authority, by an order dated 13th April, 2022 was, inter alia, pleased to, by rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner, determine and direct disbursal of gratuity payable to the deceased employee, in favour of the respondent no. 4 as the nominee of the deceased. Following the aforesaid, a notice in Form-‘R’ was issued on the said date and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Despite receipt of Form-‘R’, the petitioner did not take any steps.

6. An application was later filed by the respondent no. 4 before the Controlling Authority for issuance of a certificate in terms of Section 8 of the said Act. After receipt of such application, the Controlling Authority by a communication in writing dated 5th September, 2022, had called upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why a certificate for recovery of the amount of gratuity together with compound interest at the rate of 15 per cent per month, from the expiry of the date mentioned in the aforesaid memo, shall not be issued against them in terms of Section 8 of the said Act.

7. The petitioner having not responded to the show cause notice within the time provided,