Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.34 seconds)

Mother Dairy Fruit And Vegetable Pvt Ltd vs Satpal Singh on 22 November, 2022

4. While the matter rested thus, the respondent/workman filed a claim petition No.ALC-I/36(23)2019 titled 'Satpal Singh vs. Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.' before the Controlling Authority under the payment of gratuity Act, 1972. Petitioner/company filed a written statement before the controlling authority and stated that the services of the respondent/workman were terminated vide termination letter dated 02.05.2016 for disorderly behaviour, misconduct, disobedience and Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13086/2021 Page 4 of 19 Digitally Signed By:RAJ BALA Signing Neutral Citation Number 2022/DHC/005070 illegal occupation of staff quarter after conducting a domestic enquiry on charge-sheet dated 08.02.2016. It was alleged that the respondent/workman sexually harassed the daughter-in-law of another co-employee and an FIR No.107 under Section 354 IPC dated 24.02.2016 was lodged in PS Mandawali Fazalpur against him. It was further alleged that the said act of the respondent/workman amounted to an offence of disorderly conduct as well as an act of violence in the Mother Dairy Complex. Further, it has been pleaded that as per the License deed the act of holding threats to neighbours, noisy behaviour and quarrelling with neighbours, disturbing the tranquillity of community life of the said staff quarters complex constitutes a breach of the condition of the deed and it was on the said basis that vide letter dated 05.12.2015 the allotment of the respondent/workman was cancelled by the petitioner/company and he was directed to vacate the quarter within two months. On the account of failure of the respondent/workman to vacate the premises, he was served with a charge sheet for disorderly behaviour, misconduct, disobedience and misconduct and illegal occupation of the quarter and after holding a domestic enquiry, his services were terminated vide letter dated 02.05.2016. It was pleaded that since the respondent has caused wrongful loss by not handing over the possession of the staff quarter to the petitioner/company after his termination, therefore in view of Section 4 (6) of the Act the petitioner/company was justified in forfeiting the gratuity of the applicant.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document
1