G. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the punishment order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the respondent insofar as it relates to withholding the gratuity payable to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent - Corporation to pay the gratuity to the petitioner with 10% interest p.a. from 01.09.2017 i.e., one month from the date of retirement of the petitioner.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are that the petitioner who was working as Accounts Supervisor on the establishment of the respondent - Corporation. In terms of the order dated 27.07.2017 impugned herein, he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in two increments from the basic pay with cumulative effect and further ordered to withhold the gratuity till disposal of the criminal case registered in Cr.No.0077/2016 for certain alleged misconduct said to have been proved. It is the contention of the petitioner that no criminal case is pending against him. After attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.07.2017. In view of the observations made in the punishment order, the respondent is withholding the entire gratuity of the petitioner contrary to Section 4[6] of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1872 ['Act' for short] and hence seeks for interference of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri.L.Shekar appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the gratuity amount can be withheld by the employer only in terms of Section 4[6] of the Act wherein the order of termination is necessary. In the absence of such termination order passed against the petitioner and no criminal proceedings pending against him, the order impugned is per se illegal.