Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3 Mr.Chavan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, makes three submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that the appellate authority could not have permitted forfeiture of gratuity by the Respondent, since the Petitioner was not convicted of any offence for the time being involving moral turpitude. Learned Counsel submits that in order to invoke Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act for forfeiture of gratuity, conviction of the concerned employee for the time being in force of an offence involving moral turpitude, is a condition precedent. Learned Counsel, relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.1 and of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of The General Manger, UCO Bank, Kolkata vs. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava 2 in this behalf. Learned Counsel, secondly, submits that after termination of service in pursuance of a departmental enquiry, it is not open to the employer to hold a fresh inquiry for denying gratuity to the employee. Learned Counsel submits that no employee could be subjected to two inquiries for the same act of misconduct. Learned Counsel relies on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. Nityananda Paul 3 in this behalf. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Petitioner's application for determination of his gratuity under Section 7 of the Act was within time, since non-payment of gratuity is a continuous cause of action. Learned Counsel relies on a judgment of our court in the case of H. Jayarama Shetty vs. Sangli Bank 1 (2007) 1 SCC 663 2 2016 DGLaw(Chh) 1 3 2016 DGLaw(Cal) 554 sat wp 9044-2017.doc Ltd.4 in support of this proposition.