A petition was filed against the order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which allowed the payment of gratuity of a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent, despite there being a charge-sheet filed on the allegations that the respondent had secured the employment by fraud. The petitioner referred to Section 4(6)(b) of the act which says that the gratuity could be withheld if there had been an offence pertaining to moral turpitude. The respondent contested that he would still be entitled to the gratuity. The court referred to the fact that the order of dismissal of the respondent advised to collect the dues from the respondent but had not mentioned that the gratuity would be forfeited or withheld. It further reasoned that the respondent’s actions of securing employment with someone else’s documents were prior to securing the employment and would not come under the act of ‘moral turpitude’ to attract S. 4(6)(b) but would instead be misconduct. The High Court finally held that the Controlling Authority was right in concluding that the respondent was entitled to gratuity.
Sub-area Manager Jamuna OCM Jamuna and Kotma&Ors. V. Rajendra Singh &Ors. (MP HC- 05.04.2023)