https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124805 The text states that proved theft committed in the course of employment constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude for purposes of gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and may justify wholesale forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii). It also explains that, after the 1 July 1984 amendment, the employer must take an independent decision on the extent of forfeiture after giving notice to the employee and considering any reply. The amended provision therefore requires application of mind to the misconduct and service record before gratuity is wholly or partially forfeited. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:24:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124805 The text states that proved theft committed in the course of employment constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude for purposes of gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and may justify wholesale forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii). It also explains that, after the 1 July 1984 amendment, the employer must take an independent decision on the extent of forfeiture after giving notice to the employee and considering any reply. The amended provision therefore requires application of mind to the misconduct and service record before gratuity is wholly or partially forfeited. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124805