Kerala High Court
M/S Pest Control M. Walshe Llp vs Shri. M. Iyyappan on 29 October, 2025
2025:KER:81514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M/S PEST CONTROL M. WALSHE LLP,
503, EMBASSY CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. BALREET SINGH PRUTHI,
PIN - 400021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BENNY P.THOMAS, SC, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
LIMITED (BPCL)
SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY
SMT.MAMATHA S. ANILKUMAR
SHRI.BHARATH NAIR
SMT.PRAISY THOMAS
SMT.AMRUTHA SELVAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 SHRI. M. IYYAPPAN,
18/1823 B, PUNNAKKATTUSSERY HOUSE, PALLICHAL ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, PIN - 682006.
2 THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
ACT, ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682030.
3 THE APPELLATTE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY
ACT, DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682030.
BY ADV SMT.K.LATHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
2
2025:KER:81514
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the
Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short
'the 1972 Act') and Ext.P7 order of the Appellate Authority confirming
Ext.P5 order.
2. The 1st respondent was working at the Ernakulam
Branch at the petitioner establishment from August 2002. According to
the 1st respondent, he was initially appointed as an Executive and was
thereafter promoted as the Branch Manager. According to the petitioner,
the 1st respondent was found diverting customers of the petitioner to a
competitor, with whom the 1st respondent is now working. It is
submitted that when the petitioner found that the 1st respondent was
engaging in activities prejudicial to the petitioner Company, the
Company intended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 1 st
respondent. But, however the 1st respondent immediately submitted his
resignation in the month of March 2020. However, the petitioner did
not accept the resignation and the 1st respondent continued in service till
July 2021. It is not in dispute that for the period from March 2020 till
July 2021, salary was also paid to the 1st respondent. Though the
petitioner appears to have filed a police complaint against the 1 st
respondent, the same was also withdrawn in the year 2021 and the 1 st
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
2025:KER:81514
respondent was dismissed from service. The 1st respondent raised a
claim for payment of gratuity, which was denied by the petitioner
Company, which took the stand that it was entitled to forfeit the gratuity
in terms of the provisions contained in Section 4(6) of the 1972 Act. The
1st respondent thereupon initiated proceedings before the Controlling
Authority and the Controlling Authority by Ext.P5 order found that the
1st respondent was entitled to an amount of Rs.3,14,048/- along with
simple interest @ 10% from 21.07.2021 till the date of payment. An
appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate
authority.
3. Adv. Benny P Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner contends that the Controlling Authority as
well as the Appellate Authority have proceeded to determine the gratuity
payable to the 1st respondent on the ground that no loss was quantified
for the purpose of forfeiture. It is pointed out that the provisions of sub-
section (6) of Section 4 of the 1972 Act also contemplate a situation
where gratuity could be forfeited even without there being any loss to
the petitioner. It is submitted that gratuity is payable for long and
faithful service and when it was clearly established that the 1 st
respondent had not rendered faithful service to the petitioner, it was
well within the rights of the petitioner to forfeit the entire gratuity
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
2025:KER:81514
payable to the 1st respondent.
4. Smt. Latha K, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent vehemently submits that there was no reason for the
petitioner to forfeit the gratuity payable to the 1 st respondent. It is
submitted that the complaint filed before the police authorities was also
withdrawn specifically agreeing to pay to the 1 st respondent all service
benefits which included gratuity. It is submitted that the 1 st respondent
never accepted that he had diverted the business of the company and
those allegations remain unsubstantiated even today. It is submitted
that though the 1st respondent was relieved from service by styling the
same as dismissal, the petitioner company had actually accepted the
resignation of the 1st respondent and therefore, there was no ground to
forfeit the gratuity.
5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent, I find that though the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner may be right in contending that gratuity is payable on account
of long and faithful service, the fact remains that the charges against the
1st respondent have not been established by holding any enquiry. The 1 st
respondent also submitted his resignation on coming to know that the
petitioner company had lost faith in him. However, he was required to
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
2025:KER:81514
continue in service for nearly one year after the date of submission of
resignation. While it is open to the petitioner to contend that loss is not
absolutely necessary for forfeiture of gratuity, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders
need not be interfered with in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
DK
WP(C) NO. 39281 OF 2023
2025:KER:81514
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39281/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
21.07.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
27.07.2021 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
10.08.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
20.06.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPLICATION NO.
48/75/2021/D1 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 20.01.2023.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM
(GA.NO.39/235/2023/B6) DATED 20.03.2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
(GA.NO.39/235/2023/B6) PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF
ACCREDITATION OF FUMIGATION OPERATOR WITH
ACCREDITATION NUMBER 053010905 DATED
16-09-2005 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
REGIONAL PLANT QUARANTINE STATION, CHENNAI
Exhibit R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF PETITIONERS RESIGNATION
MAIL ALONG WITH HIS COPY RESIGNATION
LETTER DT. 09.03.2020
Exhibit R1(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27TH
JANUARY 2021 ISSUED BY GENERAL SECRETARY
OF COCHIN PORT STAFF ASSOCIATION TO THE
PETITIONER COMPANY
Exhibit R1(c) THE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE HARBOUR
POLICE STATION APPLIED AND RECEIVED AS PER
RTT ACT
