2004 Supreme(Guj) 489

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.S.JHAVERI
GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS and CHEMICALS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA T.AMIN - Respondent
S.C.A.8824 of 1999
Decided On : 08/09/2004

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 311 (2) - Payment of Gratuity Act - Sections 4 (6), 22 - Petitioner State Fertilizers and Chemicals ltd by way of this petition has challenged the order dated in Gratuity Case passed by the Controlling Authority appointed under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10th September - Petition are that the respondent at the relevant point of time was working as Manager (Agro Project) and was drawing salary of It is the case of petitioner that for holding the aforesaid post and position, high degree of responsibility trust and confidence are required from the incumbent holding the office and in the present case the respondent was authorized on behalf of the petitioner to deal with its customers to enter into financial transactions as well powers to withdraw the money from and/or make payments on behalf of the petitioner - It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the serious irregularities with regard to misusing authority and power as well as committing act of misappropriation - Respondent was served with order dated placing him under suspension with immediate effect - It is further the case of the petitioner that subsequently in view of the aforesaid acts which also amounts of moral turpitude, the respondent was served with the charge-sheet dated part from that a criminal complaint being Criminal complaint has been filed against the respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class - It is further the case of the petitioner that due to the aforesaid irregularities and misconduct petitioner lost confidence and trust in the respondent - Petitioner withdrew the aforesaid suspension order and charge-sheet and under Rule of the Companys Service Rules discharged the respondent from the service vide order dated by making payment of three months salary in lieu of notice. - Petitioner further submitted that since the irregularities committed by the respondent was not only of a serious and grave nature but also amounts to moral turpitude, more particularly at the relevant time the respondent was holding position of high responsibility - Power and confidence, the petitioner was entitled to forfeit the amount towards gratuity - Grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondent was not workman/employee he preferred an application being Gratuity Case of before the controlling authority under the provisions of Payment of Gratuity act - Before the controlling authority both the parties adduced material and after appreciating the material produced before it, the controlling authority vide order dated allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of along with the interest at the rate - Being aggrieved by the order of the controlling authority the petitioner preferred an appeal being Gratuity Appeal before the appellate authority - Appellate authority vide order dated dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated passed by the controlling authority this petition - Held, Court referred to the judgment of this Court in State 1962 SCR AIR SC in which the general argument was not accepted that in all cases where services of an employee are terminated for misconduct gratuity should not be paid to him. - Court has had occasion to consider in detail the various circumstances in which gratuity would be liable to forfeiture for misconduct of a particular nature - It was laid down in Cloth and General Mills Workmen and ors.SCR AIR SC that the object of having a gratuity scheme is to provide a retiring benefit to workmen who have rendered long and unblemished service to the employer, and thereby, contributed to the prosperity of the employer, and it is therefore, not correct to say that no misconduct however grave, may not be visited with forfeiture of gratuity - Misconduct could be of three kinds technical misconduct which leaves no trail of indiscipline misconduct resulting in damage to the employers property which might be compensated by forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof serious misconduct such as acts of violence against the Management or other employees or riotous or disorderly in or near the place of employment which though not directly causing damage is conducive to grave indiscipline first should involve no forfeiture the second may involve forfeiture of the amount equal to the loss directly suffered by the employer in consequence of the misconduct, and the third will entail forfeiture of gratuity due to the workman according to this decision if a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct of the third category, then, his gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety no such allegations are there of third category - Case of respondent he was discharged from the service without any inquiry and without any stigma - Contention raised by is misconceived and it is required to be rejected .same is rejected and the order passed by both the authorities are just and proper and require no interference. clear that both the authorities have considered the evidence on record and when the employer has not thought it fit to take punitive action, then the authority or this Court will not add any additional penalty in the facts of the case petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged - Payment which is already deposited shall be paid to the respondent. (SBS) Petition dismissed.