Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be withheld without established disciplinary proceedings or quantifiable losses, as per statutory provisions protecting gratuity from attachment.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the order passed by the Trial Court directing the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- in to court deposit and also directing the third respondent/second defendant not to take any action against the respondents 1 and 2 for non depositing the gratuity amount, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/first plaintiff.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant and the third respondent is second defendant. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.46 of 2022.

3. Brief background in filing the revision is as follows:

3.a. The suit has been originally filed by the respondents 1 and 2 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.10,05,637.98/- due by the 1st Defendant to the 1st plaintiff and Rs.4,57,652.24/- interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim to the date of realization. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the revision petitioner originally appointed as Deputy General Manager Marketing, later in the year 2007 as General Manager-Marketing, in November 2009, as Vice President Operations, in August 2011, as Senior Vice President-Sales and Marketing, in 2015, as President & CEO In-charge of the entire operation of the plaintiffs. In this connection, the revision petitioner was permitted to travel abroad for promoting the sales of the plaintiffs' products. As per the Staff Operating Guidelines, all expense statements in respect of travel in India and abroad was required to be submitted within a week of the completion of travel. According to the plaintiff, the revision petitioner drew travel expenses from the plaintiffs during the years 2014-2015, 2015-26, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Though the revision petitioner was obliged to submit his travel expenses statement and square up the expenses towards advances availed and also account of the expenses incurred by him, he was never regular prompt in submission of the accounts towards advances drawn for travel expenses.

3.b. Due to his proximity with the Managing Director of the plaintiffs company, the officials of the plaintiffs company were generally reluctant to press for submission of account statement, except to remind him from time to time that such submission was required in accordance with the accounting practices and also the staff operating guidelines. The revision petitioner used to randomly submit accounts of travel expenses bills, that were never squared and the same were never used to tally with the travel advances drawn. The auditors pointed out that unless the expenses were squared up appropriately from time to time, balance sheets could not be prepared or authenticated by the auditors and the amounts standing to debit of travel advances are to be treated as expenses attracting payment of income tax @ 30% per annum. The revision petitioner undertook to furnish bills, however, he did not do so and kept dodging the submission of the bill. On enquiry, it came to the light that the revision petitioner had undertaken certain travels without the knowledge of the company's Managing Director. Though revision petitioner has tendered resignation, the same was not accepted and he was dismissed vide communication on 02.03.2019. Hence, the plaintiff sought for a decree for recovery of money.

3.c. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner had approached the second defendant/third respondent, the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act in P.G.Case No.132 of 2018 claiming Rs.6,