KARNATAKA STATE ROAD Vs. MAHADEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner terminated the services of the 1st respondent driver w. e. f. 2-8-2003 on the premise that the appointment against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled tribe was by producing false documents as regards his social status, being in offence involving moral turpitude, eligible for 50% of the gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act 1972 for short the 'act', in terms of Circular 49 dated 17-1-1994 and deposited the said sum with the controlling authority. The respondent having made a claim for full amount of gratuity, the controlling authority by order dated 6-1-2006 Annexure-B determined the full amount of gratuity payable and directed the petitioner to make payment of the said sum, which when carried in an appeal before the appellate authority, was confirmed by order dated 24-2-2007 Annexure-C. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner did not launch a prosecution against the respondent for making a false claim for appointment to the vacancy in the post of Driver reserved for a scheduled Tribe candidate, so as to contend that the act of misconduct was an offence involving moral turpitude, disentitling the respondent to gratuity under clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision of the Act discloses that the full amount of Gratuity can be forfeited, in the event the employee is convicted for an offence involving. moral turpitude. In the absence of a conviction, of the respondent for an offence involving moral turpitude, a strict application of the said provision of the Act does not disentitle, the respondent to receive gratuity amount, and the petitioner was not justified in denying the gratuity to the respondent.