Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Western Coal Fields Limited, a government company, challenged the concurrent orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which held that respondent No.2, Manohar Fulzele, was entitled to gratuity for his 22 years 6 months and 8 days of service. The respondent joined service in 1990 and was regularized in 1992. In 2002, a complaint alleged that his actual date of birth was 01/07/1953, but he had entered service claiming 01/07/1960. A chargesheet was issued in 2012, and after an enquiry, he was dismissed in 2013. The employer then issued a show cause notice for forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority both rejected the forfeiture claim, holding that the misconduct did not involve moral turpitude or cause loss to the employer. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, upheld these concurrent findings, noting that the false declaration of date of birth, while a misconduct, was not committed in the course of employment and did not result in any damage to the employer's property. The court emphasized that forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) requires wilful omission or negligence causing damage to the employer, which was not established. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Gratuity - Forfeiture - Section 4(6)(b)(ii) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Wilful Omission - The employer sought to forfeit gratuity on the ground that the employee had given false date of birth at entry into service. The court held that forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) requires that the misconduct be committed in the course of employment and must involve moral turpitude or cause financial loss to the employer. The false declaration of date of birth, though a misconduct, did not result in any loss to the employer nor was it committed in the course of employment. The concurrent findings of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority that the employee was entitled to gratuity were upheld. (Paras 2-5) B) Gratuity - Forfeiture - Section 4(6)(b)(ii) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Wilful Omission - The court interpreted the provision to mean that forfeiture is permissible only if the employee's act is a wilful omission or negligence causing damage to the employer's property. The false declaration of age did not fall within this category. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer is entitled to forfeit gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on the ground that the employee had given false information regarding his date of birth at the time of employment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to forfeit gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972 requires wilful omission or negligence causing damage to employer
- mere false declaration of date of birth does not attract forfeiture
- concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities not to be interfered with lightly under writ jurisdiction.
