The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the employer must establish the financial loss caused by the employee to justify the forfeiture of gratuity.

ORDER :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, the appellants-original petitioners have challenged the oral order dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 30.08.2017 in Gratuity Application No. ALC/RJT/48(31)/2015 passed by Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) as well as the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Appellate Authority cum Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner in P.G. Appeal No. AH/DY/CLC/48(88)/2017 by which the present appellants are directed to pay the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.9,77,440/- with interest at the rate of 10% to the respondent No.1. However, the rate of interest is reduced by the learned Single Judge from 10% to 8% with effect from 16.02.2012.

2. Short facts of the present case are as under:

The respondent No.1-employee who was working as a Branch Manager with the appellant Bank was served with show cause notice for departmental inquiry. He was chargesheeted and his services were terminated. The said order was challenged by the employee before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and ordered the employee to compulsory retire as a Branch Manager. Thereafter, in the year-2015, the appellant Bank issued a notice dated 23.11.2015 under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act and called upon the respondent that why his gratuity should not be forfeited since he had caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.4.36 Crores to the appellant Bank. The same was replied. However, the Authority forfeited the amount of gratuity. Hence, the said action/order was challenged by the respondent-employee by filing an application under the Act. The Controlling Authority after considering the facts of the case accepted the application and directed the appellants to pay the gratuity of Rs.9,77,440/- with interest at the rate of 10%. The said decision was challenged by the present appellants by way of filing appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Both the orders were challenged in the captioned writ petition.

3. In response to the notice issued by the learned Single Judge, the respondent employee filed his affidavit in reply and opposed the petition filed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge after considering various aspects including the ground of delay in initiating proceedings under the Act, dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood for the appellants submits that both the Authorities as well as learned Single Judge have committed an error in interpreting the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) of the Act. By taking us through the notice dated 23.11.2015 issued by the appellant Bank under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act, he would submit that it was specifically alleged against the respondent-employee that Bank has caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.4.36 Crores. He would further submit that since specific amount of financial loss was stated in the notice, the Authorities as well as the learned Single Judge ought not to have accepted the case of the respondent employee. After arguing the matter for some time on this point, he would further submit that if the Court finds that appellant Bank is not able to establish the financial loss, it may be permitted to issue fresh notice available under the provisions of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (F.B.) in case of UCO Bank and Others Versus Anju Mathur reported in 2013 LawSuit (P&H) 1242. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the appeal be accordingly allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.1-employee has vehemently opposed this appeal. He would submit that there are concurrent fi