National Insurance Company Ltd v. The Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act And Another

       !




"#"$%"&'( ) 

*+" &",-#-'(. 

*+-'*/'#0$*',"12*'3
+& 22"//*'+ 4"$#0# 5"'+$//-'60+5$-+30'&"$*31"'+ $*+0-+3,+ *'&*'+5"$ "#2'&"'+# (7
 888 7
8 88949
 

   

88:   



  



! !"

#$   

 !

'

   !( ) !

( *+
,)-  

$ .



/0!

*  1 2- #$   



$ 

   $       5 6  . ,77
    



#



 

  $  

   $





     

 



:





   

 4 (;, 



 

< 

 "

=  



 $

 

 $

  ,  

  



7



 



   

 

  7

  

   



# # 

 ( >     



  

  ) : $ ?

 ?

    

 ?



 > 

     



 



$ #
 ,



 11Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 refers in specific sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the 1972 Act, wherein parameters have been defined under which an employee can be debarred from giving the benefit of gratuity. He submits that for applicability of said provision of law, employee is required to be terminated from service due to any of his act, wilful omission or

. negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer. However, there is nothing to point out with the petitioner-Company that any kind of loss or damage has been suffered by it because of the act of respondent No. 2. Even, termination is required to be followed by two reasons, which are enumerated under Section 4(6)(b) of the 1972 Act. Learned counsel, thus, submits that in the absence of any of the parameters required for forfeiting the payment of gratuity, respondent No. 2 cannot be deprived of his lawful right of payment of gratuity, which has been withheld by the petitioner-Company in an erroneous and illegal manner.'' =

 

  $    



 $

 

       @

7 $  

,  

 



 

 

 

%  

 

 

   

/ : #     

  9 #   $  $   3 #  

  

:  



     @ 

 



 

 

 





  >   



7  

#    



!



 *-

$  

 

88

 . 

8949