DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner bank has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing payment of gratuity to the respondent. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent herein entered service in the petitioner bank on 15.7.1972. He was placed Under suspension pending disciplinary action with effect from 16.2.1998. Shortly thereafter a memo of charges dated 11.3.1998 was issued. The charges leveled against the first respondent, who was then working as Assistant Manager, were as follows:--

(2.) An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the first respondent. The first respondent did not participate in the enquiry and therefore the enquiry was held ex-parte. The enquiry officer submitted a report to the effect that the charges leveled against the first respondent have been proved. Based on the report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the first respondent from service as per proceedings dated 23.11.1998. Challenging the said order the first respondent fifed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank. The Board of Directors that met on 23.1.1999 heard the first respondent and resolved to reject the appeal. The said decision was communicated to the first respondent along with Ext. P1 letter dated 15.2.1999. The said order has become final.

(3.) Long afterwards, the first respondent filed Ext. P2 petition dated 7.1.2008 under section 7(4)(b)(i) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' for short) before the Controlling Authority under the Act [Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central), Emakulam] seeking payment of the sum of Rs. 2,25,000 as gratuity. In that application he claimed that he had a total service of 26 years and the last drawn wages was Rs. 15,000 per month. The petitioner bank resisted the said application by filing Ext. P3 objections wherein it was inter alia contended that under the provisions of the Group Gratuity Scheme of the bank and the Act an employee whose services have been terminated for fraud or misconduct is not entitled to gratuity and therefore the first respondent is not entitled to claim payment of gratuity. It was further contended that the misconduct committed by the first respondent was very grave and serious, that the misconduct alleged and proved in the enquiry involves moral turpitude and therefore he is not entitled to gratuity under the Act. It was also contended that the monthly wages of the first respondent was only Rs. 10,448 and therefore the amount claimed is exorbitant.