Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 21088
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
V C SAXENA – Respondent
W.P.(C)-5321/2017
Mr. K. K. Rai, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra, Ms. Medha Tandon, Mr. Anshul Rai and Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocates; Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
Forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is not automatic upon termination for moral turpitude; an opportunity must be afforded to the employee before such forfeiture.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4(6) - Quashing of order by Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity - Employee convicted of corruption - Gratuity not automatically forfeited upon termination; employer must afford opportunity to employee before forfeiture - Court held that the learned Controlling Authority erred in granting full gratuity without considering moral turpitude - Matter remanded for determination of gratuity amount. (Paras 1, 36, 72, 74)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Writ petition not maintainable if alternative remedy exists; however, High Court may exercise discretion in exceptional cases. (Paras 25, 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Controlling Authority which directed payment of gratuity to the respondent, who was convicted for corruption. The petitioner argued that gratuity should be forfeited due to moral turpitude. (Paras 1, 3, 10)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Controlling Authority failed to consider the requirement of providing an opportunity to the respondent before forfeiting gratuity and that the forfeiture is not automatic. (Paras 36, 72)
Issues: Whether the learned Controlling Authority rightly granted gratuity despite the respondent's conviction for corruption? (Paras 39, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act is not automatic and requires an independent decision by the employer after affording an opportunity to the employee. (Paras 42, 60)
Result: The petition is disposed of; the entitlement to gratuity is upheld, but the quantum is remanded for fresh determination. (Paras 74, 76)
ORDER
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2016 passed in claim application bearing no. ALC-HQTB/36(104) of 2015, by the learned Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter “the Act”)
and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Delhi, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the instant petition are as under:
- a. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent was working as a Manager (Accounts) at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Cargo Complex and a criminal complaint was filed against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation for accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. b. Based on the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the respondent under Section 7, 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the respondent was taken into custody and remained in judicial custody after which he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 11th July, 2001 by the petitioner.
- c. Subsequently, vide order dated 25th April, 2009, the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. d. The respondent assailed the said conviction order before the Coordinate Bench this Court vide Criminal Appeal bearing no. 363/2009 wherein the respondent‟s sentence was suspended vide order dated 14th May, 2009 and the said appeal is still pending for adjudication.
- e. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a memorandum dated 1st September, 2009 invoking Regulation 33 of AAIE (CDA) Regulations, 2003 and imposed a major penalty by dismissing the respondent from his services with immediate effect.
- f. In response to the aforesaid memorandum, the petitioner submitted a representation which was considered and dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13th October, 2010. Against the said dismissal order, an appeal before the Appellate Authority was also filed by the respondent which was dismissed vide order dated 28th December, 2010.
- g. The respondent further filed a writ petition bearing W.P (C) no. 480/2011 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court challenging his dismissal order which was also dismissed vide order dated 7th January, 2013. A Letter Patent Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA no. 148/2013 vide order dated 8th March, 2013 h. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application dated 10th October, 2013 before the Controlling Authority seeking release of his gratuity from the petitioner which was not pursued by the respondent.
- i. The respondent then filed a writ petition bearing W.P (C) no. 5089/2015 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, thereby, seeking directions against the petitioner to pay gratuity, encashment of earned leave and medical card. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22nd May, 2015. Furthermore, another writ petition bearing W.P (C) no. 9171/2015 was filed by the respondent before the Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking declaration of Regulation 3 (4) (b) of the AAI (Gratuity) Regulations, 2003 being ultra vires and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 3rd August, 2016.
- j. During the pendency of writ petition bearing W.P (C) no. 9171/2015, the respondent filed an application dated 4th April, 2016 before the learned Controlling Authority, thereby, claiming gratuity on the ground that no departmental proceeding is pending against him as on date and termination of his services does not come under Section 4 (6) of the Act. The respondent also claimed parity with respect to the other employees with an allegation that the petitioner was biased against him. The respondent further claimed that as per law, gratuity can only be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss caused to the petitioner.
- k. In the above said cla
