Ratios:
a. The term ’moral turpitude’ has no fixed meaning and absolute standard cannot be laid down for deciding whether a particular act is to be considered as one involving ’moral turpitude’.
b. ’Moral turpitude’ is a conduct which is not only contrary to the accepted behaviour, but also a behaviour which is grossly misdirected.
c. An act may under certain circumstances be described as involving moral turpitude and in other circumstances as not involving moral turpitude. (Editor’s note: This case presents an exhaustive and intricate analysis of the fluid concept ’moral turpitude’ in service jurisprudence)

D. Murugesan, J. Both the writ appeals arise out of an order dated 23.10.2008 passed in W.P.No.12297 of 2006. W.A.No.118 of 2009 is at the instance of a salesman who worked under the Management of Parry and Company Ltd. and W.A.No.144 of 2009 is filed by the said Management.

2. The question in both the writ appeals relate to whether an employee, who has been terminated from service on the ground of proved mis-conduct, would be disentitled to the payment of gratuity in terms of Section 4(6) (b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For convenience, we refer the parties as they were arrayed in the writ petition.

3. The facts of the case leading to the above question are as follows:- a) The writ petitioner was appointed as a salesman in the respondent-company, which is a commercial establishment acting as an agent for other manufacturers. It owned a distillery sugar mill at Nellikuppam, which produces carbon-di-oxide (CO2) as bi-product. The said Carbon-di-oxide is stored in a tank and supplied in cylinders to the dealers/retailers. The petitioner was deputed to the said holding company and was posted as salesman in charge of sale of CO2. He should keep constant touch with dealers and to oversee the maintenance of records relating to the cylinders in the CO2 department of Nellikuppam factory. His work involved contacting dealers, customers and apprasing them of the effective use of the product and to attend equitable distribution of the product among the various dealers. (b) Sometime during March 1990, certain discrepancies relating to the receipt of empty cylinders from A.E.Duraisamy and Company, Pondicherry, delivered on 30.11.1988 in the Cylinder Ledger Account came to be discovered. The statement of cylinders delivered to the said company along with the delivery of empty cylinders showed that only 117 cylinders were actually returned back on 30.11.1988; on the other hand, the entry relating to the empty cylinders return made on that day in the cylinder ledger account showed that it was 177 cylinders. On the ground that there was a manipulation of entry and receipt of illegal gratification by the petitioner along with one other co-employee by name Nicholas, the respondent-company found that the petitioner had acted prejudicial to the interest of the company. Hence, he was issued with a charge memo, which ultimately resulted in the conduct of enquiry followed by an order of dismissal of the petitioner. (c) That order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner before the II Additional Labour Court, Madras, in I.D.No.146 of 1992 and an award dated 14.6.1994 came to be passed directing reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits. That award was questioned by the respondent-company in a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed. When the said order in the writ petition was questioned by the petitioner by way of a writ appeal, the same was dismissed. A further appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the petitioner was also dismissed on 10.4.2000. In view of the above, the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service became final. (d) In view of the dismissal order became final, the respondent-company issued a show cause notice asking the petitioner to give his explanation as to why the gratuity should not be forfeited for his proved mis-conduct of dishonesty in connection with the companys business. The petitioner submitted an explanation and not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondent passed an order on 9.10.1991 forfeiting the gratuity amount to the petitioner. (e) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Controlling Authority, which was dismissed. A further appeal was also filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of Labour, the appellate authority under the Act, and the same was also dismissed. The reason adduced by the respondent-company, which was subsequently