IMPORTANT POINT
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 Others. Gratuity and pension are hard-earned benefits and cannot be forfeited without due process of law.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J. - These petitions have been filed by Mr. Sanjay Kaura ("Petitioner No. 1") and Mr. F.G. Runda ("Petitioner No. 2") (collectively referred to as "petitioners") assailing two separate decisions dated 11th October, 2018 ("impugned decisions") passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Appellate Authority"). The appeals were filed by the respondent-management under section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("the Act") impugning orders dated 21st May, 2018 and 25th May, 2018 ("orders of the Controlling Authority") passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act and Assistant Labour Commissioner ("Controlling Authority"). In the claim applications filed by the petitioners, orders of the Controlling Authority had directed the management to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.3,43,073/-along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 13th July, 2012 till the date of actual payment in favour of Petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,96,761/- along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 22nd January, 2013 in favour Petitioner No. 2 for delayed payment.

Factual Background

2. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Accounts Assistant in the Finance Department, Northern Region NACIL [formerly known as Indian Airlines Limited ("IAL")] in April, 1990 whereas Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Traffic Superintendent in the Northern Region NACIL in December, 1990 respectively. Vide letters dated 7th December, 2000 and 22nd December, 2000 the petitioners were suspended from their services with respondent-management on account of serious allegations of misconduct. A First Information Report ("FIR") dated 24th May, 2000 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation ("CBI") being RC 4(S)/2000-SIU.I under sections 120-B read with sections 380, 408, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in which charge sheet had also been filed. Vide order dated 12th December, 2000, bail had been granted to the Petitioner No. 2 (only one bail order was produced). On 11 th February, 2003, the management issued a charge sheet to the petitioners alleging that they along with other persons had hatched a plan in the year 1999 to take out the stock of Cash Value Documents ("CVDs") unauthorisedly from IAL and thereafter illegally enriched themselves by getting tickets cancelled and refunded from various IAL stations.

3. On the basis of an enquiry report pertaining to the said allegations, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners proposing penalty of 'dismissal from service without terminal benefits. After considering the replies filed by the petitioners and finding no extenuating reasons to dilute the alleged charges, petitioners' services were dismissed on 13th July, 2012 and 22nd January, 2013 respectively. The petitioners filed preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Executive Director, Northern Region of the Management which came to be rejected vide letters dated 21st June, 2013 and 31st July, 2013. In August, 2014, the petitioners raised an industrial dispute challenging their wrongful dismissal which is still pending adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. In the meantime, in May, 2017 they filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act for payment of their gratuity. Vide orders dated 21st May, 2018 and 25th May, 2018, the petitioners' applications for payment of gratuity were allowed by the Controlling Authority. The respondent-management filed an appeal against the same before the Appellate Authority which set aside the orders of the Controlling Authority by way of the impugned decisions.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned decisions on the following grounds:

4.1 The respondent-management had not issued any show cause notice to the petitioners under the