Court :
Civil Court
Brief :
Whether forfeiture of gratuity, under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’), is automatic on dismissal from service, is the issue for consideration in this case.
Citation :
Civil Appeal No. 8251 of 2018
UNION BANK OF INDIA v. C.G. AJAY BABU [SC] Civil Appeal No. 8251 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3852 of 2017]
[Decided on 14/08/2018]
APPLICABLE ACT Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Payment of gratuity. —
(1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,—
(a) on his superannuation, or
(b) on his retirement or resignation, or
(c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease:
Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement:
Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority.
For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement.
(2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned:
Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year], the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season.
In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.
(3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed ten lakh rupees.
(4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced.
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),—
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited]—
(i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or
(ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.
Whether forfeiture of gratuity, under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’), is automatic on dismissal from service, is the issue for consideration in this case.
The respondent was an employee of the appellant-Bank.
While serving as a Branch Manager, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the respondent was dismissed from service.
In the meanwhile, the respondent was issued a show-cause notice as to why the gratuity should not be forfeited on account of proved misconduct involving moral turpitude.
His explanation was rejected and the gratuity was forfeited.
The dismissal and forfeiture were the subject matters of challenge before the High Court leading to the impugned judgment by which the Court upheld the dismissal and rejected the forfeiture of gratuity.
The division bench also confirmed with the Single Judge.
Hence, the bank is before the Supreme Court in appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Though the learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank has contended that the conduct of the respondent-employee, which leads to the framing of charges in the departmental proceedings involves moral turpitude, we are afraid the contention cannot be appreciated. It is not the conduct of a person involving moral turpitude that is required for forfeiture of gratuity but the conduct or the act should constitute an offence involving moral turpitude.
To be an offence, the act should be made punishable under law. That is absolutely in the realm of criminal law. It is not for the Bank to decide whether an offence has been committed. It is for the court. Apart from the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellant- Bank, the Bank has not set the criminal law in motion either by registering an FIR or by filing a criminal complaint so as to establish that the misconduct leading to dismissal is an offence involving moral turpitude.
Under sub-Section (6)(b)(ii) of the Act, forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only if the termination of an employee is for any misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and convicted accordingly by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors (2007) 1 SCC 663, it has been held by this Court that forfeiture of gratuity either wholly or partially is permissible under sub-Section (6) (b) (ii) only in the event that the termination is on account of riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence or on account of an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude when he is convictedIn the present case, 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.
Thus, though for different reasons as well, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs
DISCLAIMER: The case law presented here is only for sharing information with the readers. The views are personal, shall not be considered as professional advice. In case of necessity do consult with consultants.
CAclubindia
