Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of India

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 4(5) and (6)

Forfeiture of gratuity–
There is no conviction of the respondent for the misconduct which according to the Bank is an offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, there is no justification for the forfeiture of gratuity on the ground stated in the order dated 20.04.2004 that the “misconduct proved against you amounts to acts involving moral turpitude”. At the risk of redundancy, we may state that the requirement of the statute is not the proof of misconduct of acts involving moral turpitude but the acts should constitute an offence involving moral turpitude and such offence should be duly established in a court of law. That the Act must prevail over the Rules on Payment of Gratuity framed by the employer is also a settled position as per Jaswant Singh Gill (supra). Therefore, the appellant cannot take recourse to its own Rules, ignoring the Act, for denying gratuity. To sum-up, forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from service; it is subject to sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 4 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Though for different reasons as well, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. .....Union Bank of India =VS= C.G. Ajay Babu, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (SC) 63] ....View Full Judgment

The payment of gratuity amount–
In view of the foregoing discussion, we cannot agree with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court which is legally unsustainable. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the appellant was being denied by the State at every stage of the proceedings up to this Court and dragged him in fruitless litigation for all these years. “Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.” Appellant was being opposed by the State on technical grounds. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside and the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority are restored with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the State to the appellant. Cost to be paid by the State along with the payment of gratuity amount. .....Netram Sahu =VS= State of Chhattisgarh, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (SC) 86] ....View Full Judgment