Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

unless he has put in fifteen years' service. In our opinion, the observation on which this argument is based was not intended to lay down a rule of universal application in regard to all gratuity schemes, and so it cannot be made the basis of an attack against a gratuity scheme where instead of fifteen years' service 10 years' minimum service is prescribed to enable an employee to claim gratuity at the rate determined if he resigns after ten years, service. Therefore, we do not think that the provision of cl. (ii)(a) can be successfully challenged as being unreasonable. Clause (iv) is then challenged by Mr. Sen. This clause provides that if a workman is dismissed or discharged for misconduct causing financial loss to the works gratuity to the extent of the loss should not be paid to the workman concerned. Mr. Sen contends that this clause is inconsistent with the principles on which gratuity claims are generally based. Gratuity which is in the nature of retrial benefit is based on long and meritorious service, and the argument is that if the service of an employee is terminated on the ground of misconduct it would not be open to him on principle to claim gratuity because misconduct puts a blot on the character of his service and that disqualifies him from any claim of gratuity. In this connection he has referred us to the definition of 'retrenchment' contained in s. 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Retrenchment, according to the definition, means, inter alia, the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Mr. Sen suggests that the retrenchment benefit and gratuity are payments made to the employee for a similar purpose, and if dismissal of an employee for misconduct does not entitle him to a claim for retrenchment benefit so should gratuity be denied to him in case he is dismissed for misconduct. A similar argument is based on the rules framed under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. Rule 71 of the Provident Funds Scheme Rules provides for certain deductions from the account of a member dismissed for Serious and willful misconduct. By analogy it is urged that this rule also shows that a dismissed employee is not entitled to gratuity. We are not impressed by these arguments.

On principle if gratuity is earned by an employee for long and meritorious service it is difficult to under,stand why the benefit thus earned by long and meritorious )service should not be available to the employee even though at the end of such service lie may have been found guilty of misconduct which entails his dismissal. Gratuity is not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon. It is paid to him for the service rendered by him to the employer, and when it is once earned it is difficult to understand why it should necessarily be denied to him whatever may be the nature of misconduct for his dismissal. Then, as to the definition of retrenchment in the Industrial Disputes Act, we are not satisfied that gratuity and retrenchment compensation stand exactly on the same footing in regard to the effect of misconduct on the rights of workmen. The rule of the provident fund scheme shows not that the whole provident fund is denied to the employee even if he is dismissed but it merely authorises certain deductions to be made and then too the deductions thus made do not revert to the employer either. Therefore we do not think that it would be possible to accede to the general argument that in all cases where the service of an employee is terminated for misconduct gratuity should not be paid to him. It appears that in awards which framed gratuity schemes sometimes simple misconduct is distinguished from gross misconduct and a penalty of forfeiture of gratuity benefit is denied in the latter case but not in the former, but latterly industrial tribunals appear generally to have adopted the rule which is contained in el. (ii) (b) of the present scheme.If the misconduct for which the service of an employee is terminated has caused financial loss to the works, then before gratuity could be paid to the employee he is called upon to compensate the employer for the whole of the financial loss caused by his misconduct, and after this compensation is paid to the employer if any balance from the gratuity claimable by the employee remains that is paid to him. On the whole we are not satisfied that the clause thus framed by the Industrial Tribunal in the present case needs to be revised. The last contention raised by Mr. Sen in regard to the gratuity scheme has reference to cl. (v) of the scheme. This clause provides that for calculating years of service the entire service of the workmen should be taken into account. Mr. Sen contends that though the word "continuous" has not been used either in cl. (v) or in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) we should make it clear that the service referred to in all the said clauses referred to continuous service. This position is not disputed by Mr. Dudhia for the respon- dents. We would accordingly make it clear that the service referred to in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) refers to continuous service.