S.P.S. Rana vs National Seeds Corporation
2013 Latest Caselaw 4839 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) No.1316/2010

%                                                       22nd October, 2013

S.P.S. RANA                                   ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       None.

                          Versus

NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION                  ...Respondent
                 Through: Mr. Sudhir Kulshrestha, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           No one appeared for the petitioner yesterday. No one appears

for the petitioner even today although it is 2.45 P.M. Record shows that

after filing of the counter affidavit case has not been pursued by the

petitioner and no rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

2.           By this writ petition, petitioner prayed for release of the

terminal benefits including gratuity which were forfeited by the respondent

corporation/employer.

3.           Counsel appearing for the respondent states that all amounts

due to the petitioner have been paid except the gratuity which has been

W.P.(C) No.1316/2010                                               Page 1 of 3
 forfeited on account of loss caused to the employer. It is argued that this

forfeiture can take place in terms of the provision of Section 4(6) of Payment

of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). Section 4(6) of

the Act reads as under:-

     "Section 4. Payment of Gratuity.-(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."
4.             Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order

passed by the disciplinary authority which is filed at page 134 as Annexure

P-10.     As per para 8 of the order of the disciplinary authority dated

29.5.2008 petitioner has been held guilty of misappropriation of the sum of

Rs.1,24,571.50/- and because of which to this extent the gratuity of the

petitioner has been forfeited.


W.P.(C) No.1316/2010                                             Page 2 of 3
 5.           A reference to Section 4(6) of the Act shows that where the

services of an employee have been terminated for causing loss to the

employer, then, gratuity can be forfeited.         Since in the present case,

petitioner has caused loss to his employer and he has been dismissed from

services, the provision of Section 4(6) of the Act will come into play to

entitle the respondent to forfeit the gratuity.

6.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition whereby

the petitioner claims release of the gratuity. Petition is therefore dismissed,

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 22, 2013                                  VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne