PERMALI WALLANCE LTD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure P-5) of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the 'act') directing the petitioners to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs. 8,625/-to respondent No. 4 earned by him during the period of his employment. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, vide order dated September 6, 1991 (Annexure P-6) passed in Gratuity Appeal No. 6/bpl/90.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to the petition are thus -The petitioner is an Engineering Industry engaged in manufacturing and sale of insulated material, Fibre Glass Engineering components etc. Respondent No. 4 was employed as a workman, who vide order dated August 2, 1986, was dismissed, after holding a domestic enquiry from service on a charge of misconduct under Clause 12 (1) (m) of the Statutory Standing Orders, framed under M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. Against the order of said dismissal the respondent No. 4 raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication of Labour Court No. 2 at Bhopal, which is still awaiting its final award. During the pendency of the dispute, respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, before the controlling Authority for a direction to petitioner to make the payment of gratuity. The petitioner contested the application on the grounds, that the application is barred by time, the order of termination has not attained finality as the dispute relating to termination is sub-judice, before the Labour Court, the petitioner was guilty of causing loss and damages because of his act of wilful slowing down in performance of his work of the undertaking. After enquiry, the Controlling Authority, vide order dated June 12, 1990 (Annexure 9-4) directed the petitioner to make the payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 8625/ -. Aggrieved of that the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by Appellate Authority, vide order (Annexure P-6 ).

(3.) SHRI Vijay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly contended that as the service of respondent No. 4 was terminated for causing loss and damage, which was in lacs of rupees, hence, in view of Clause (a)-of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, his gratuity was forfeited, to which the respondent No. 4 is not entitled, because of his act of misconduct.