ORION MOTORS PVT LIMITED Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned orders dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Hisar Circle and the appellate order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-2) upholding the order of the Controlling Authority and directing the petitioner to pay gratuity to the widow and children of late Sh. Sanjiv Dahiya.

(2.) The brief facts are that Sanjiv Dahiya served the petitionerCompany from 16.11.1999 to 15.04.2006 as Manager (Sales). Sanjiv Dahiya was dismissed by the Company on 24.04.2006 for alleged acts of malfeasance and misfeasance in the accounts of the Company. It is said that on 01.05.2006 he had committed suicide. The widow and the minor children of late Sanjiv Dahiya made a claim for unpaid gratuity against the petitioner before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Circle Hisar. The Controlling Authority after a detailed examination of the documentary evidence placed on record awarded an amount of Rs.66,635/- in favour of the family of the deceased who are respondent Nos.3 to 5 in the present petition. An amount of interest calculated at Rs.28,486/- was also awarded and in case of non-payment within 30 days of the order, the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum on the amount of gratuity from the date of the order i.e. 31.01.2011. The Controlling Authority held that gratuity had become due and payable but was not deposited by the petitioner. The Controlling Authority found that Sanjiv Dahiya had tendered his resignation on 18.04.2006 (Ex. R-2) prior to his alleged dismissal on 24.04.2006 (Ex. R-4). It also found no evidence on record whether the order of dismissal was served or communicated to the deceased in his life time. The defence of the management that Sanjiv Dahiya had misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.1,44,21,156/- was found untenable since neither any charge-sheet was issued to the Sanjiv Dahiya nor any enquiry ordered. In the absence of a charge of misappropriation laid against Sanjiv Dahiya, it was not possible to resist the claim for gratuity made before the Controlling Authority.

(3.) I do not find any illegality in the findings of the Controlling Authority that it was a case of resignation and not one of dismissal. This issue can be examined from yet another angle. Assuming arguendo that there was misappropriation then the management was free not to have issued an order of dismissal severing the relationship of master and servant by their own act. They could have continued him. Then they may have been within their rights to suspend Sanjiv Dahiya, issue charge-sheet and initiate enquiry. They chose not to do so. The petitioner, therefore, cannot agitate the matter before this Court on the ground that Sanjiv Dahiya had committed fraud or misappropriation and, therefore, not only he but now his family deserves to be punished.