Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
PULLA KARTHIK
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Respondent
ORDER :
(PULLA KARTHIK, J.)
Seeking to call for the records pertaining to the orders of Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, in P.G.Application No.48/169/2015-E3, dated 27.05.2016, as upheld by the Deputy Chief Labour (Central) Commissioner, Hyderabad, in Case No.PGA-6/2017, dated 20.07.2017, and quash the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2) For better understanding of the case facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Labour Court, only for the purpose of narration of case facts.
2.1) In the year 1979, the applicant was appointed as Artisan Grade-IV and after rendering 34 years of service, he was terminated as Technician on 14.12.2013 and his last drawn wage was Rs.59,407/- at the time of his leaving the respondent Organization. Further, while the applicant was working as Technician in the Township Administration Department of respondent Organization, the respondents have issued a charge memorandum dated 21.04.2011 vide Proceedings No.HY/TA/ DISCP/2011 framing six charges, for which, the applicant has submitted his explanation. However, without considering
Forfeiture of gratuity requires clear evidence of moral turpitude; suspension period cannot be counted as qualifying service under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act requires a conviction for moral turpitude; absence of such conviction renders forfeiture unjustified.
Gratuity cannot be forfeited unless the termination arises from misconduct causing financial loss, further requiring conviction for moral turpitude for such an action to be justified.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 do not permit inclusion of circumstances relating to the i....
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot apply to acts occurring after employment cessation, and necessitates prior notice to the employee.
Gratuity forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
Forfeiture of gratuity for misconduct involving moral turpitude is permissible without a criminal conviction, emphasizing the discretion of the appointing authority in determining the extent of forfe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
