Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 9 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
WP No. 51200 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 51200 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION,
KIMCO BUILDING,
DEEPANJALINAGARA, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY MS H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
by BELUR AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
RANGADHAMA UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
NANDINI REGION 1, KARMEEKA BHAWAN,
Location: HIGH BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 029.
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
DIVISION-1, KARMEEKA KALYANA MANDALI,
OFFICE COMPLEX, TUMKUR ROAD,
PEENYA I STAGE, BANGALORE - 566 058.
3. RANGASWAMY,
S/O LATE VEERAKEMPAIAH, ADULT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
WP No. 51200 of 2015
HC-KAR
R/O KOLUR VILLAGE, RAMOHALLI POST,
VIA KENGERI,
BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
SRI R SOMASUNDR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD 19.03.2013 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE R-
2.QUASH THE ORDER DTD23.04.2015 (ANNEXURE-G).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated
19.03.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority marked at
Annexure-F and the order dated 23.04.2015 marked at
Annexure-G passed by the Appellate Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972').
3. Respondent No.3 was the employee of the
petitioner - Corporation. He was dismissed from services on
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
the charges that he has produced fake certificate while
seeking employment. The penalty of dismissal was the
subject matter of the industrial dispute in I.D.No.42/2010.
The workman's claim before the Labour Court was rejected
vide award dated 27.11.2013 and penalty of dismissal is
confirmed. It is stated that both writ petitions and writ
appeals challenging the award passed by the Labour Court
are dismissed.
4. The petitioner issued notice on 23.09.2010 asking
the respondent - workman to show cause as to why his
gratuity should not be confiscated under Section 4(6)(b) of
the Act of 1972. The workman responded to the said notice
vide reply dated 04.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner in
terms of the order dated 19.11.2010 confiscated the gratuity
payable. The workman raised a dispute before the
Controlling Authority.
5. In terms of the impugned order dated
19.03.2013, the Controlling Authority directed payment of
gratuity, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
Authority in terms of the order dated 23.04.2015, the
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal directing the
petitioner to pay the gratuity amount as claimed by the
respondent - workman.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1972
enables the employer to forfeit the gratuity amount in case
the employee is terminated because of an act constituting an
offence involving moral turpitude, if such offence is
committed by him in the course of his employment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also
refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs Manohar
Govinda Fulzele1. It is the contention that there is no need
to file a criminal complaint against the workman for having
committed an offence involving moral turpitude and since he
is terminated on account of misconduct which involves moral
(2025) 3 S.C.R. 183
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
turpitude, the petitioner is justified in confiscating the
gratuity amount.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the
other hand would submit that the respondent - workman has
taken all his papers with necessary "No Objection" long back
and he has no instructions to argue the matter. It is his
further submission that he should be given three weeks time
to issue notice to the respondent - workman.
9. Since it is submitted that respondent - workman
has taken papers long back along with "No Objection", this
Court is of the view that further notice is not required to
respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 had also submitted that respondent No.3
has withdrawn the amount deposited before the Appellate
Authority and the petition becomes infructuous.
10. This Court has considered the contentions raised
at the bar and perused the records.
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
11. Assuming that the respondent - workman has
withdrawn the amount deposited before the Appellate
Authority, the present petition does not become infructuous.
In case the petitioner succeeds then the respondent -
workman has to repay the said amount which he has
received by way of restitution.
12. Coming to the merits of the case, there is no
dispute that the respondent No.3 was terminated from
service for having produced fake certificate seeking
employment. There is no difficulty in holding that the said
act of respondent - workman constitutes offence involving
moral turpitude and though it is urged that the document
was produced earlier to the employment and not during the
course of employment, such technical contention cannot be
considered, as the respondent - workman continued to work
in the petitioner-Corporation based on the said certificate till
he was dismissed from services.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned
case in Western Coal Fields Ltd. supra has held that to
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
attract Section 4(6)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1972, there need not
be a criminal complaint alleging moral turpitude. Since the
termination is on account of the fake certificate produced by
the respondent - workman, this Court is of the view that the
dismissal of the respondent-workman on the charges of
producing the fake certificate constitutes offence involving
moral turpitude. Hence, the ratio in the aforementioned
judgment in Western Coal Fields Ltd. supra squarely
applies to the case on hand.
14. This being the position, this Court has to hold that
Section 4(6)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1972 does apply and
employer is justified in forfeiting the gratuity. Hence, the
impugned orders have to be set-aside.
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 19.03.2013
passed by the Controlling Authority marked
at Annexure-F and the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:25028
HC-KAR
23.04.2015 marked at Annexure-G passed by
the Appellate Authority are quashed.
(iii) Respondent - workman shall reimburse the
amount to the petitioner - Corporation within
30 days from today along with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of his withdrawal
till the date of payment.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
