https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312373 The Delhi HC addressed forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and held that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) applies only where the employee's act is finally determined to constitute an offence involving moral turpitude committed in the course of employment. It distinguished Section 4(6)(a), which permits only proportionate forfeiture to the extent of loss caused by wilful misconduct or negligence, and Section 4(6)(b)(i), which concerns riotous, disorderly, or violent conduct. Mere registration of an FIR or filing of a charge sheet was insufficient to establish the statutory precondition for full forfeiture. The forfeiture of the entire gratuity was therefore premature and unsustainable, and release of gratuity was directed. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Feb 2024 19:49:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312373 The Delhi HC addressed forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and held that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) applies only where the employee's act is finally determined to constitute an offence involving moral turpitude committed in the course of employment. It distinguished Section 4(6)(a), which permits only proportionate forfeiture to the extent of loss caused by wilful misconduct or negligence, and Section 4(6)(b)(i), which concerns riotous, disorderly, or violent conduct. Mere registration of an FIR or filing of a charge sheet was insufficient to establish the statutory precondition for full forfeiture. The forfeiture of the entire gratuity was therefore premature and unsustainable, and release of gratuity was directed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312373