FIELD GENERAL MANAGER Vs. BIJAYANANDA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition challenges the Order, dtd. 24/2/2023 (page-28), passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the Order, dtd. 5/8/2022 (page-99), passed by the Controlling Authority holding that the Respondent No.1 is entitled to receive the amount of gratuity along with accrued Interest within 30 days of the said order.

(2.) Mr. Chhabra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners by placing reliance upon the Rules framed by the Bank (page-132) contends that the Petitioners were entitled to forfeiture of the gratuity as the Respondent No.1 has been dismissed for misconduct on account of which loss has been caused to the Petitioner-Bank and therefore, the impugned Orders are liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Both the Authorities below, have concurrently held that the PetitionerBank, was not entitled to forfeit the gratuity on the above ground. The learned Controlling Authority in the Order, dtd. 5/8/2022 in relation to the Letter, dtd. 2/12/2019 (page-96), issued by the Petitioner-Bank has held that there is no justification for the forfeiture of Gratuity on the ground stated in the forfeiture order that the acts committed and proved against the Respondent No.1 tantamounts to the act of moral turpitude. It is also held that the requirement of the Statute under Sec. 4(6)(ii) is the conviction by the Court and not otherwise. Such a position, is duly spelt out from what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Bank of India v. C.G. Ajay Babu, 2018 (4) LLN 1 (SC) : 2019 (1) CWC 330 (SC) : 2018 (9) SCC 529, wherein it has been held as under: