BHARATH GOLD MINES LTD Vs. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Appeal, the following question of law arises for consideration:

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The third Respondent was a workman in the service of the appellant at Bharath Gold Mines, Kolar. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on the charge that he had committed theft of Gold of the value of Rs. 155, 61 in the course of his employment in the Gold Mines. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the third Respondent w.e.f. 18-8-1981 forfeiting all rights and privileges accrued to him from his past service. The order of dismissal has not been challenged by the third Respondent in any proceeding and consequently it has become final. The third Respondent, however, made an application before the second Respondent. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, praying for a direction to the appellant to pay him the amount of Gratuity for 26 years of service which he had put in, before the date of termination of his service. Before the second Respondent, the appellant contended that as the third Respondent was dismissed from service after finding him guilty of theft which constituted an offence involving moral turpitude, the Gratuity payable to him stood wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The second Respondent held that as no show cause notice was issued to the third Respondent, the forfeiting of the Gratuity amount was wrong and accordingly allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 6,930/- to the third Respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first Respondent - the Appellate Authority under the Act. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal relying on the judgment of a Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sri Panchali -v.- BGML, KGF, W.P. No. 13303 of 1978 DD 30-6-1980 in which the Learned Judge held that the offence of theft did not involve moral turpitude and therefore Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act was not attracted. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant presented the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was rejected without issuing 'Rule Nisi' on the ground that the Appellate Authority had relied upon the order of this Court made in W.P. No. 13303/19781. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has presented this appeal.

(3.) As Respondent No. 3 - workman, remained unrepresented, we nominated Sri. B.V. Acharya, Learned Counsel, to appear as amicus curiae in the case.