Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether forfeiture of the employee's entire gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was sustainable before a competent criminal court had finally determined that the alleged acts constituted an offence involving moral turpitude.
Analysis: Section 4(6)(a) applies where termination is for an act, wilful omission, or negligence causing damage or loss, and forfeiture is confined to the extent of such loss. Section 4(6)(b)(i) concerns riotous, disorderly, or violent conduct. Section 4(6)(b)(ii) operates only where the termination is for an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude committed in the course of employment. The expression requires certainty that the act amounts to such an offence, and that determination lies within the criminal law domain. Mere registration of an FIR or filing of a charge sheet does not amount to a final judicial determination. In the absence of such final determination, the employer could not conclude that the statutory condition for forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) was satisfied.
Conclusion: The forfeiture of the entire gratuity was premature and unsustainable; the action was set aside and the gratuity was directed to be released.