Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires a conviction for moral turpitude; absence of such conviction renders forfeiture unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writs, order or directions for quashing of the order dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-5) in P.G. Case No. 36(48) of 2017 passed by the Controlling Authority cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, whereby and whereunder the Learned Labour Court has been pleased to held that forfeiture of Gratuity of respondent no. 3 (applicant) by the Management of M/s Central Coalfields Limited is not justified and the applicant Shri Lal Mohan Ganjhu is entitled for gratuity amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- the petitioner is directed to pay the same within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

(b) For further issuance of writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-7) by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad cum Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in P.G. Appeal No. (26)/2020A-7, whereby and whereunder the Learned Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner Central Coalfields Limited with a finding that the appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed, the finding of the Controlling Authority are upheld, the respondent is entitled to receive the Gratuity amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(c) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) For stay operation of order dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-5) in P.G. Case No. 36(48) of 2017 passed by the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hazaribagh, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-7) by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad cum Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, till disposal of present Writ Petition.”

Arguments of the petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 was appointed on 24.01.1982 as piece rated workman showing his date of birth as 22.01.1958 and was later promoted to mining Sirdar and then to overman grade-B and then to overman-grade-A. The respondent no. 3 submitted a matriculation certificate for promotion to the post of senior overman T&S Grade A-1 as the minimum qualification was matriculation. However, it was found that his date of birth in the service sheet varied with the matriculation certificate and upon enquiry from the competent authority it was found that the certificate was forged. A charge sheet dated 1.7.2016 was issued to the petitioner and as per the enquiry report it was found that he obtained employment on the basis of forged document and the order of dismissal was passed on 16.12.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the gratuity was rightly forfeited by the management on the ground of ‘moral turpitude’ in terms of Section 4 (6) (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

4. However, the respondent no. 3 approached the Controlling Authority cum Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Hazaribag under payment of Gratuity Act who passed an order dated 25.02.2020 in PG Case No. 36(48) of 2017 and directed for payment of gratuity to the respondent no. 3. Aggrieved with an order dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure-5), the petitioner filed appeal. The Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure-7). The learned counsel submits that both the authorities have failed to consider that it was a clear case of ‘moral turpitude’ in as much as upon enquiry it was found that the document submitted by the respondent no. 3 was forged.

Arguments of the private respondent

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent while opposing the prayer has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India versus C.G. Ajay Babu (2018) 9 SCC 529 to submit that it has been held that no