(1.) This petition has been filed by invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an interlocutory order dated 26th July, 2016 (Annex. P-11) dismissing an application under Order 11 Rules 12, 14 and 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the petitioner-Management to compel the claimant-respondent no.2 for discovery of documents from him.
(2.) The application has been filed in proceedings on an application under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short "the Act") filed by the ex-employee whose services were terminated in March, 2015. Ordinarily, a writ would not lie against an interim or interlocutory order unless it would avoid a miscarriage of justice. The claimant-respondent claims gratuity whereas the petitioner-Management obstructs grant of gratuity citing reasons contained in Form "M" (Clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Haryana Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972) (for short "the Rules") thereby repudiating the claim for payment of gratuity by notice dated 21st May, 2015 (Annex. P-3).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would especially refer to Clauses 5 to 7 of the Rules. Denial of Payment of Gratuity is based on Sec. 4 (6) (b) of the Act which provides that gratuity payable to the employee may be wholly or partially forfeited notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Sec. 4 if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. The claimant has been imputed withholding of electronic and other evidence on an allegation that he was moonlighting with one Dr. Cynthia Thaik and was soliciting business for himself without the knowledge of his employer and in breach of confidentiality agreement spelled out in the letter of appointment in terms of Clauses 10, 10.1 and 14.3 of the letter of appointment dated 1st April, 2013 (Annex. P-2).