Bombay High Court
The General Manager (Hrm) Bank Of ... vs Prakash Vishnu Shinde And Others on 4 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11409
2.wp.154.22.jud 1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.154 OF 2022
Petitioner : The General Manager (HRM),
(Original Non-Applicant) Bank of Maharashtra,
Central Office, Head Office, Lokmangal,
1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005..
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Shri Prakash Vishnu Shinde,
(Original Applicants) Aged about 64 Years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. J/19, Dhanraj Co-operative Housing Society,
1224, Apte Road, Deccan Gymkhana,
Pune - 411005.
2. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
& Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
CGO Complex, Block 'C', 1st Floor, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur - 440 006.
3. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 & Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
CGO Complex, Block 'C', 1st Floor, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur - 440 006.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mrs. Renuka Puranik Nalamwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. V.A. Bramhe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 14th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 4th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
02. Respondent No.1 was in employment with the petitioner-bank as
Regional Manager, Zonal Office, Goa. A departmental enquiry was initiated
against him by issuing charge-sheet dated 30/10/2013. He was placed under
suspension on 07/12/2013. While the enquiry was pending, respondent No.1
attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/2013. However, the enquiry
continued even after his retirement and punishment of compulsory retirement
was imposed on respondent No.1 vide order dated 29/04/2016.
03. The controversy in the present petition pertains to the claim of
gratuity of respondent No.1. The petitioner had forfeited gratuity of
respondent No.1 vide order dated 29/04/2016. Respondent No.1 approached
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) challenging the action of the
petitioner denying his claim for gratuity. The Controlling Authority allowed
the application filed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 06/12/2019
holding that respondent No.1 was entitled to receive gratuity amount of
Rs.10.00 lakhs with interest for the delayed payment and, accordingly,
directed the petitioner to pay the said amount to respondent No.1 with
accrued interest thereon. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
06/12/2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority
under the Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated
30/08/2021. The aforesaid orders are the subject matter of challenge in the
present petition.
04. The learned Controlling Authority has held that the petitioner
had failed to prove that it had suffered any loss on account of misconduct by
respondent No.1 and, therefore, gratuity payable to respondent No.1 could
not be forfeited. It is also held that the action to forfeit gratuity was taken
without following due process of law and principles of natural justice. It is
held that after the punishment was imposed on respondent No.1 in
disciplinary enquiry, it was necessary to afford further opportunity of hearing
to determine the quantum of actual loss suffered by the petitioner-bank on
account of misconduct by respondent No.1. The learned Appellate Authority
has held that since respondent No.1 was not prosecuted for the offence
involving moral turpitude, the amount of gratuity payable to him could not be
forfeited invoking Sections 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act.
05. Perusal of the order forfeiting gratuity will demonstrate that the
petitioner had invoked Sections 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. Section
4(6) of the Act reads as under:
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) -
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been
terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing
any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to
the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or
loss so caused.
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or
partially forfeited-
(i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his
riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his
part, or
(ii) 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."
06. Thus, the decision to forfeit the amount of gratuity is taken on
the ground that services of respondent No.1 were terminated for acts on his
part, which caused loss to the petitioner-employer and also on the ground that
his services were terminated for acts committed during the course of
employment, which constitute an offence involving moral turpitude.
07. Perusal of the order will demonstrate that the amount of loss
allegedly suffered is not quantified. Likewise, the petitioner-bank has also not
initiated any enquiry to determine the amount of alleged loss suffered. The
action of forfeiture of gratuity, therefore, cannot be sustained under Section
4(6)(a) of the Act.
08. The learned Advocates appearing for the rival parties made
elaborate submissions on the right of the employer to forfeit gratuity under
Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. As observed above, the learned Appellate
Authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground
that respondent No.1 was not prosecuted for any offence involving moral
turpitude, which was allegedly committed during the course of his
employment. It is held that since there was no prosecution, the petitioner-
employer could not have forfeited the amount of gratuity.
09. With respect, the learned Appellate Authority has erred in
interpreting Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The provision does not
contemplate that the employee must be convicted by a Court of competent
jurisdiction for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude
and his services should be terminated for such act. The provision simply
contemplates that services of the employee should be terminated for any act
committed during the course of employment, which constitutes an offence
involving moral turpitude. Thus, termination of services on the ground that
the act committed by the employee amounts to offence involving moral
turpitude by itself, is sufficient to forfeit the claim of gratuity. The legal
position in this regard is well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Western Coalfields Vs. Manohar Govinda Fjulzale ,
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 345. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered judgment in the matter of Union Bank of India and others vs. C.G.
Ajay Babu and another, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 529 and has disagreed with
the observations in the said judgment that in order to attract Section 4(6)(b)
(ii) of the Act, the services of the employee should be terminated on the
ground of commission of an act involving moral turpitude during the course
of employment coupled with conviction of the employee by a competent Court
of law for such act. It is clearly held that termination of service on account of
any act amounting to moral turpitude by itself is sufficient to attract Section
4(6)(b)(ii) and that conviction by a competent court of law for the said act is
not required. The observations made in the matter of C.G. Ajay Babu, to this
extent, are found to be obiter and unnecessary by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. In the case at hand, after conducting departmental enquiry
against respondent No.1, punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed
by the petitioner-employer. The question, which falls for consideration in the
present petition, is as to whether the order of compulsory retirement will
amount to termination of services to sustain the action of forfeiture of
gratuity.
11. Perusal of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act will indicate that order
of forfeiture of gratuity can be passed only if services are terminated on
account of an act involving moral turpitude. If punishment other than
termination of services is imposed, then gratuity cannot be forfeited under
Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act.
12. To answer the question, it will be necessary to refer to the
provisions of various Regulations framed by the Board of Directors of the
petitioner-bank in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 read with
Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Bank of Maharashtra Officers' Service
Regulations, 1979, the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline
and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the Bank of Maharashtra (Employees')
Pension Regulations, 1995 will be relevant for answering the issue. Regulation
46 of the Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 deals with gratuity. The said
regulation reads as under:
"Regulation 46 - Gratuity
46(1) Every Officer, shall be eligible for gratuity on:
1) Retirement
2) Death
3) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as
certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank;
4) resignation after completing ten years of continuous service;
5) termination of service in any other way of punishment after
completion of 10 years of service;
46(2) The amount of gratuity payable to an Officer shall be one
month's pay for every completed year of service, subject to a
maximum of 15 months' pay.
Provided that where an Officer has completed more than 30
years of service, he shall be eligible by way of Gratuity for an
additional amount at the rate of an additional amount at the
rate of one half of a month's pay for each completed year of
service beyond 30 areas.
Provided further that pay for the purpose of Gratuity for an
officer who ceased to be in service during the period 01.07.1993
to 31.10.1994 shall be with regard to scale of pay as specified in
Sub Regulation (1) of Regulation 4.
NOTE:- If the fraction of service beyond completed years of
service is 6 months or more, Gratuity will be paid pro-rata for
the period."
13. Perusal of the Regulations will demonstrate that every Officer is
eligible for gratuity on his retirement. However, in case of termination of
service by way of punishment, after competition of 10 years of service, the
employee concerned will not be entitled to right to receive gratuity.
Therefore, even under the Regulations, right to receive gratuity can be denied
only in the case of termination of services.
14. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the Discipline
and Appeal Regulations, 1976. The Regulation 4 enumerates minor and
major penalties. The relevant portion of Regulation 4 reads as under :
"Regulation 4 - Penalties : The following are the penalties which
may be imposed on an officer employee, for acts of misconduct
or for any other good and sufficient reasons.
Major Penalties :
(a)..........
(b)..........
(h) compulsory retirement;
(i) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for
future employment;
(j) dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for
future employment.
Explanation : The following shall not amount to a penalty
within the meaning of this regulation namely:-
(vii) termination of the service -
(a) of an officer employee appointed on probation
during or at the end of the period of probation, in
accordance with the terms of his appointment, or the
rules or orders governing such probation.
(b) of an officer employee appointed in a temporary
capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement;
on the expiration of the period for which he was
appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his
appointment,
(c) of an officer employee appointed under a contract or
agreement, in accordance with the terms of such
contract on agreement.
(ix) termination of employment of a permanent officer
employee by giving 3 month notice or on payment of 3 month's
pay and allowances in lieu of notice,
(x) termination of employment of an officer employee on
medical grounds, if he is declared unfit to continue in bank's
service by the bank's medical officer."
15. Thus, the Regulation does not refer to the words "termination of
service" as a penalty. However, there are three major penalties by virtue of
which relationship of employer and employee can be terminated by the bank.
These major penalties are compulsory retirement, removal of service and
dismissal from service. The Explanation to Regulation 4, is also relevant
inasmuch as it uses the words "termination of service" and states that
termination of service of an Officer at the end of probation or end of
appointment on temporary basis or in accordance with terms of contract or
termination by giving three months notice or on medical grounds will not be a
punishment. Perusal of the Regulation will clearly indicate that compulsory
retirement is a major penalty under the Regulation.
16. It will also be appropriate to refer to Regulation 20 of the
Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, which reads as under:
"Regulation No.20 - Termination of Service:
Regulation No.20(1)
(a) Subject to Sub-Regulation (3) of Regulation (16), where the
bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is
unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bona fide suspicion
about his integrity or his retention in the Bank's service would
be prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, and where it is not
possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the
disciplinary procedure, the Bank may terminate his services on
giving him three months' notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from
time to time.
(b) Order of termination under this Sub-Regulation shall not be
made unless such officer has been given a reasonable
opportunity of making a representation to the Bank against the
proposed order.
(f) An officer employee whose services are terminated under
sub-regulation (a) above shall be paid Gratuity, Provident Fund
including employer's contribution and all other dues that may
be admissible to him as per rules notwithstanding the years of
services rendered."
17. Perusal of Regulation 20(1)(a) will demonstrate that services of
an employee can be terminated by giving him three months' notice or
emoluments of three months' notice period. Perusal of Regulation 20(1)(f)
will demonstrate that in case where services of an employee are terminated
under Regulation 20(1)(a), such employee will be entitled to receive gratuity.
Although, the words "compulsory retirement" are not used in Regulation
20(1)(a), reading of the provision makes it clear that the said provision
contemplates compulsory retirement. However, this action of compulsory
retirement under Regulation 20(1)(a) is not punitive in nature. It is rather an
administrative action. As against this, compulsory retirement under
Regulation 4(h) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 is by way of
punishment. There is a qualitative difference between two modes of
termination of services. Whereas, termination of service under Regulation
20(1)(a) is an administrative act, termination of service under Regulation
4(h) is a punitive action. Therefore, the Officers' Service Regulations provide
that when services of an employee are terminated under Regulation 20(1)(a),
he will be entitled to receive gratuity.
18. As stated above, right to forfeit gratuity is vested with the
petitioner-bank on termination of service by way of punishment after 10 years
of service. Regulation 46, as stated above, speaks of termination by way of
punishment and not compulsory retirement. However, perusal of Regulation
4 will demonstrate that there are three punishments by virtue of which
services of an employee can be terminated viz. compulsory retirement,
removal and dismissal.
19. It is well settled that removal and dismissal are species of
termination. Whereas, removal from service does not debar the employee
from seeking reemployment with the employer and dismissal of services
forfeits the employee from seeking reemployment with the employer.
Compulsory retirement by way of punishment is also a mode of termination of
service. However, it is qualitatively different from punishment of removal and
dismissal. In case of termination of service by way of removal or dismissal,
the employee normally is not entitled to receive pension, if he is working on a
pensionable post. However, in case of punishment of compulsory retirement,
the employee may be entitled to receive pension.
20. In this regard, it is necessary to refer to the Bank of Maharashtra
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 of the petitioner-bank. Regulation 22
of the said Regulations states that resignation or dismissal or removal or
termination of an employee from the services of the bank will dis-entitle him
from receiving pensionary benefits. Regulation 33 deals with 'compulsory
retirement pension'. It provides that when an employee is compulsorily
retired from service, as a penalty under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations,
1976, pension may be granted to him by the Competent Authority at a rate
not less than 2/3rd of the full amount of pension, which would have been
payable to him on the date of compulsory retirement.
21. Perusal of all the Regulations will indicate that the Regulations
provide for three separate modes of termination of service by way of penalty
viz. dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. A separate punishment of
termination by way of compulsory retirement is provided so that benefit of
pension can be granted to the employee despite termination of his services.
22. Having regard to the scheme of the Regulations, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the order of compulsory retirement will
amount to termination of service by way of penalty. Such termination by way
of compulsory retirement, if made on account of misconduct relating to moral
turpitude during the course of employment will attract Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of
the Act. In such a situation, employer will be entitled to pass order for
forfeiture of gratuity.
23. It is well settled that removal and dismissal are two species of
termination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the matter of Union of India
and another vs. Tulsiram Patel, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 held that order
of compulsory retirement by way of punishment also amounts to removal
from service. Thus, order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment
results in termination in service by way of penalty.
24. In the Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in the matter of UCO Bank and others vs. Anju Mathur , reported in
2013 SCC OnLine P&H 5014, dealing with identical Regulations, it is held that
order of compulsory retirement is of two types viz. an administrative order
and order by way of punishment. It is held that in case where an order of
punishment is imposed by way of compulsory retirement, the same will
amount to imposing punishment of termination of service, which will dis-
entitle the employee to receive gratuity in view of Regulation 46(1)(e) of the
UCO Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 46 of the UCO
Bank Regulations is identical to Regulation 46 of Bank of Maharashtra
Regulations. Similar view is taken by a learned Single Bench of the Madras
High Court in it's judgment dated 04/09/2023 delivered in Writ Petition
No.1375 of 2018 (The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of
India vs. The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) . The
learned Single Judge has followed the aforesaid Full Bench's judgment in the
matter of Anju Mathur and has held that punishment of compulsory
retirement for misconduct relating to moral turpitude will amount to
termination of service dis-entitling the employee to receive gratuity under
Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. This Court is in complete agreement with the
said judgments.
25. It will be pertinent to state that termination of services of an
employee by itself is not a ground for forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)
(b)(ii) of the Act. Termination of services should be on account of act
committed during the course of employment, which constitutes an offence
involving moral turpitude. It is, therefore, necessary to peruse the punishment
order dated 31/03/2016. Perusal of the said order will demonstrate that
Charge Nos.1, 2 and 3 pertain to inaction on the part of respondent No.1 to
take appropriate action against one of his subordinates. However, Charge
Nos.4, 5 and 6 will demonstrate that he had sanctioned fake loans for
protecting his subordinate Officer and concealing his misconduct and for that
purpose, he had transferred amounts from accounts of one customer to
another by opening fake loan account. The said charges are clearly pertaining
to acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude. The case of respondent
No.1, therefore, falls under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act.
26. Another contention raised by the learned Advocate for
respondent No.1 is that respondent No.1 has attained the age of
superannuation on 31/12/2013 and as such was entitled to receive the
amount of gratuity on the said date. The learned Advocate contends that the
order of forfeiture of gratuity was passed on 29/04/2016 i.e. long after the
said amount had already become due and payable. He also contends that the
order of compulsory retirement is passed on 31/03/2016. The learned
Advocate contends that since the right to receive gratuity was vested on
31/12/2013 itself, the same could not have been deprived in view of order of
compulsory retirement dated 31/03/2016. The contention is liable to be
rejected in view of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Officers' Service Regulations,
1979, which provides for continuation of disciplinary proceedings against a
delinquent employee even after his superannuation. The petitioner was well
within its right to withhold the amount of gratuity payable to respondent No.1
in view of pending disciplinary proceedings which were legally continued
even after his superannuation. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Rabindranath Choubey ,
reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
Section 4(6) overrides Section 4(1) of the Act. It is further held that the Act
does not make any provision with respect to departmental enquiry. It is
further held that if the relevant service Rules permit continuation of
departmental enquiry after superannuation of the employee, the employer can
withhold the amount of gratuity till culmination of the enquiry and to take
appropriate decision with respect to payment of gratuity on conclusion of the
enquiry. It is held that Section 4(1) of the Act does not curtail right of
employer to continue with the enquiry after superannuation of the employee,
if the service Rules enable the employer to do so. It is further held that if
gratuity is directed to be paid on superannuation of the employee while the
enquiry is pending, the very object of Section 4(6) of the Act shall stand
defeated. In the present case, Regulations of the petitioner-bank permit
continuation of disciplinary enquiry even after the employee attains the age of
superannuation. In that view of the matter, it will have to be held that the
petitioner-employer was entitled to withhold the amount of gratuity till
culmination of departmental enquiry against the respondent-employee.
27. The learned Advocate for the respondent-employee contends
that the act of forfeiture of gratuity is also liable to the quashed, since the said
action is taken in breach of the principles of natural justice. He has placed
reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jorsingh
Govind Vanjari vs. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Jalgaon, reported in 2017
(2) SCC 12 in support of his contention. In the said case, services of the
employee were terminated and amount of gratuity was also forfeited. The
employee challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court. The
learned Labour Court set aside the dismissal order and held that the employee
was entitled to all service benefits. Since the employee has attained the age
of superannuation, 50% back wages were ordered to be paid till the date of
superannuation. The employer challenged the said order before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the petition modifying the award passed by
the Labour Court by directing that 50% amount of back wages, as awarded by
the Labour Court, would be payable as 'one time compensation' to the
employee and the employee will not be entitled to gratuity since charge of
mortal turpitude during the course of employment was proved against him.
The employee challenged the order passed by the High Court before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed
by the employee finding that despite opportunity of leading evidence to prove
the charge being granted by the learned Labour Court, the employer failed to
avail the said opportunity and as such failed to prove the misconduct. In view
of the aforesaid, the order of termination on account of moral turpitude was
set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that since termination was set
aside, payment of gratuity could not be denied to the employee merely in the
light of enquiry report holding the employee guilty of the act involving moral
turpitude. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the payment of gratuity,
since the order of termination on the ground of moral turpitude was set aside.
The said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. It is not the case that
termination of respondent - employee is set aside.
28. The judgment in the matter of The Chairman and Managing
Director, Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Shri Kishore s/o. Shankarrao
Khadatkar & Ors., reported in 2022(6) ALL MR 431 is pertaining to forfeiture
of gratuity under Section 4(6)(a), which provides for forfeiture of gratuity of
an employee whose services are terminated for any act or willful omission or
negligence causing damage or loss to the employer to the extent of such
damage or loss. Perusal of paragraph 26 of the judgment will demonstrate
that this Court has held that when gratuity is to be forfeited under Section
4(6)(a), notice is required to be issued to the employee stating the basis of the
alleged loss and quantum thereof to the employee so as to enable the
employee to contest the contention of the employer regarding factum of loss
suffered, if any, and quantum thereof. It will be pertinent to mention that in
paragraph 25 of the judgment, it is categorically held that forfeiture of
gratuity was not under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) but only under Section 4(6)(a) of
the Act.
29. As regards the case of Vasant B. Bhujbal vs. Controlling
Authority, reported in 2021(3) Mh.L.J. 585, this Court has held that unless
there is a proven case of employee being involved in an act amounting to
offence of moral turpitude, separate 'show cause notice' must be given to the
employee before taking any decision with respect to forfeiture of gratuity. The
judgment places reliance upon another Single Bench's decision in the matter
of Nanubhai Nichhabhai Desai vs. Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank ,
reported in 2017(4) Mh.L.J. 271. The said judgment categorically lays down
that in case misconduct amounting to moral turpitude is proved in
disciplinary enquiry, fresh notice for forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)
(b)(ii) need not be issued.
30. The ratio of the said judgments cannot be applied to the present
case, where order of forfeiture was also passed invoking Section 4(6)(b)(ii).
Rather, the judgment in the matter of Nanubhai categorically rejects the
contention that once services of an employee are terminated after holding
departmental enquiry on the ground of misconduct involving moral turpitude,
separate 'show cause notice' of forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(ii)
is not required.
31. In the present case, services of the respondent-employee are
terminated by way of compulsory retirement after holding enquiry against
him. In the said enquiry, charges relating to moral turpitude during the
course of employment are held to be proved and, accordingly, order of
punishment of compulsory retirement is passed. In view of the aforesaid, it
must be held that the contention with respect to breach of natural justice is
liable to be rejected.
32. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 has also placed
reliance on judgment of the Bombay High Court in AIR India Ltd. vs.
Dharman K. Patil, reported in 2022(1) CLR 314. In the said case, services of
the employee were terminated on the ground that he had secured
employment by furnishing false information. This Court has held that
securing employment by furnishing false information will not amount to act
involving moral turpitude committed during the course of employment. It is
held that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act will not be applicable and, therefore,
the order of forfeiture of gratuity was set aside. With respect, this judgment
does not appear to be in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Manohar Govinda
Fulzele reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 345. In the case before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the employee had secured employment by suppressing his
actual date of birth. His services were terminated after holding enquiry on
this ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the appointment
itself was illegal, there was no question of the terminated employee seeking
fruits of employment by way of gratuity and, accordingly, action of the
employer forfeiting the entire amount of gratuity was upheld.
33. In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the impugned order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority are unsustainable and are liable to be quashed. The writ
petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed in the following
terms:
i. The order dated 30/08/2021 passed by respondent No.2-
Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Nagpur in PG Appeal
No.N/48(02)/2020-PG and order dated 06/12/2019 passed by
respondent No.30-Controlling Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),
Nagpur in Case No.ALCN/48(25)/2016-PGA are quashed and
set aside.
ii. It is declared that respondent No.1-Shri Prakash Vishnu Shinde
is not entitled to receive gratuity. Application filed by
respondent No.1 for direction to the petitioner to make payment
of gratuity bearing No.ALCN/48(25)/2016-PGA is rejected.
iii. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
(Rohit W. Joshi, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/11/2025 17:35:27
