THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.3349 of 2018

ORDER:

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 the same, an enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry report, the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed on the petitioner. Further, the Appeal and Review Petition filed by the applicant on 28.12.2013 and 27.01.2014 before the Appellate Authority and Review Authority respectively were also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the show cause notice vide Ref.No.HY:1858300:2014, dated 29.03.2014, to the applicant as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short ‘Gratuity Act’), stating as to why the Gratuity payable to him cannot be forfeited keeping in view the quantum of loss caused to the property belonging to the petitioner. Duly withdrawing the said show cause notice dated 29.03.2014, the respondents have issued another show cause notice dated 07.10.2015, to which, the applicant has submitted his explanation on 17.10.2015. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have passed the order vide Ref.No.HY/TA/1858300/15, dated 30.12.2015, forfeiting the entire gratuity amount otherwise payable to the applicant. Challenging the same, the applicant has filed P.G. Application No.48/169/2015-E3 before respondent No.2 and vide order dated 27.05.2016, the said authority has allowed the application directing the respondents to pay Gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- along with simple interest at 10% per annum w.e.f.24.08.2015. Challenging the same, the respondents have filed an appeal before respondent No.1 vide PGA No.6/2017 and vide order dated 20.07.2017, the same was disposed of partially upholding the order passed by respondent No.2, however, modifying the gratuity payable period and duly including the period of suspension of the applicant till the date of deposit of gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent authorities are before this Court.

3) Heard Sri Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner- employer, learned Government Pleader for Labour appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.3-employee.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the authorities have grossly erred in holding that the act of moral turpitude cannot be attributed to the employee purporting to act under the provisions of Gratuity Act and grossly erred in ordering payment of gratuity to the employee pending adjudication of the case in I.D.No.54 of 2015 before the CGIT. It is further contended that the authorities under the Gratuity Act can pass orders against the Company once it is held by the competent Tribunal that the order of dismissal is bad in law. It is further submitted that both the authorities have misconstrued themselves and went on to decide as to whether the order of dismissal passed against the employee is