Home » Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 4(6)(a) – Any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH 24th March 2022
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Section 4(6)(a) – Any employer can forfeit the gratuity of an employee if the employee is terminated for any act or omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the property belonging to the employer.
Such forfeiture can only be to the extent of the damage or loss caused, and not beyond that. (Para 42) W.P.(C) 4486/2021 & CM APPL. 13708/2021 UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Versus SH D.C. CHATURVEDI & ANR. Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, and Mr. Kamal R Digpaul Advocate for UOI. W.P.(C) 4604/2021 & CM APPL. 14086/2021 UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. Versus SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR SINGHAL & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for R-1. J U D G M E N T
This pronouncement has been done through hybrid conferencing.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CORAM: Facts in W.P.(C) 4486/2021 2.
The Respondent herein- Mr. D.C. Chaturvedi, was an employee of the Petitioner Bank Union Bank of India (hereinafter “Bank”). A charge sheet was issued against him on 7th November 1994, alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank. A show-cause notice was issued and, thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The report of the Inquiry Officer held the Respondent/Employee (hereinafter “Employee No.1”) guilty of the charges leveled against him. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank vide order dated 21st August 1998 imposed the penalty of dismissal on Employee No.1.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that forfeiture of gratuity by the Bank under section 4(6)(a) of the Act is clearly not justifiable. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, considering the delay in filing the claim of Employee No.1 and the factual background leading to the forfeiture in the case of Employee No.2, it is held that interest would not be liable to be paid by the Bank for the period from the date of termination till the date of the application filed by each of the employees before the Controlling Authority.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above terms, along with all pending applications. No order as to costs.