CHAUHAN D S Vs. FOOD CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was earlier working as assistant Manager, Quality Control, with the respondent Corporation, was charge-sheeted for failing to maintain supervisory control. In pursuance of the said chargesheet, order of dismissal from service was passed on August 30, 1999. The petitioner was paid 90% of the contributory Provident Fund vide cheque dated december 14, 2005.

(2.) THE petitioner claims interest on the said amount on account of delayed payment. The petitioner also claimed amount of gratuity for the services rendered with the Corporation for about 30 years 2 months and 24 days. The said request for gratuity was declined vide order dated February 15, 2006, Annexure P-12, on the basis of circular of the Corporation dated June 3/7, 2005.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the gratuity could be withheld only if the order of punishment is on account of causing financial loss to the employer. Since the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on account of lack of supervisory control, the amount of gratuity could not be withheld. It was also argued that in the circular Annexure P-13, the matter was considered by the respondent-Corporation keeping in view the provisions of Payment of gratuity Act (39 of 1972) (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), Discipline and Appeal regulations of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 as well as opinion/views of Panel Advocates. It was communicated that, as per Section 4 (6) (a)of the Act, the gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.