( 1 )

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition challenges the order dated 5th April, 2002 passed by the Controlling Authority as well the order in appeal dated 14th June, 2002 by which the appeal of the petitioner was not admitted on failure to comply with the provisions of Section 7 (7) of the Payment of the Gratuity Act requiring deposit of the impugned amount. The petitioner sought to challenge the original order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act which directed payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- as gratuity to the respondent before the appellate authority. One of the issues i. e. issue No. 2 was to the effect that the claim raised by the respondent is belated and should be dismissed on this ground. This issue has been deliberated upon by the Controlling Authority which has recorded a finding that it was by virtue of correspondence sent by the respondent No. 4 to the petitioner company, which has assured payment and that the claim was not settled and good reasons were given in the impugned order for condoning the delay. The Tribunal has relied upon the correspondence dated 1st December, 1998, 21-12-1998, 12-01-1999, 15-01-1999, 08-02-1999, 24-02-1999, 01-03-1999, 11-03-1999, 07-04-1999, 26-04-1999, 23-05-1999, 14-01-2000 (marked as Exhibit A-3, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-24, A-25, A-29 and A-3 ). These letters have been found to contain the respondent No. 4 s request for release of gratuity and petitioner s request to him for bearing with the delay in such release. These documents were not challenged by the petitioner before before the Controlling Authority. Thus the Controlling Authority has rightly condoned the delay. Since correspondence was from the company itself, the ground for condoning the delay was correct and accordingly there is no merit in this plea.

( 4 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri J. K. Seth submitted that by agreeing to enhancement of rent beyond Rs. 3500/-, the respondent No. 4 has cheated the company and accordingly in October, 2000 under Sections 418, 420 and 122 a complaint was filed against him. He accordingly relied upon provisions of Section 4 (6) which permits the withholding of the gratuity on grounds of negligence, causing any damage or loss to the property of the company or termination of an employee s services on the riotous conduct, violence or act involving moral turpitude during the course of the employment. Section 4 (6) reads as follows:

"4. Payment of gratuity - (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) - (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited] - (i)if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii)if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.

( 5 ) IN my view Section 4 (6) does not apply as it is not in dispute that the respondent had resigned on 1st June, 1998 and the resignation had been accepted. Since the services of the respondent No. 4 had not been terminated which is the sine-qua-non of the applicability of Section 4 (6), clause (6) of Section 4 cannot apply in the present case.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has further pointed out that far from being suspected in fact respondent s work was appreciated as is evident from the letter of appreciation issued by Mr. Manu Chabria, Chairman of the company. He has further pointed out that plea of