9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court held that in view of the amendment to Section 4(6) (b) an employer has to take an independent decision after termination of service of an employee as to whether gratuity payable should at all be forfeited and if so, to what extent. - - - - - Dated:- 4-7-1986 - R Jois, Ramakrishna J. JUDGMENT Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Writ Appeal, the following question of law arises for consideration: "Whether theft is an offence involving moral turpitude and if so, if the services of an employee had been terminated on the charge of theft committed in the course of his employment, the Gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short) stands wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act ?" 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The third Respondent was a workman in the service of the appellant at Bharath Gold Mines, Kolar. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on the charge that he had committed theft of Gold of the value of Rs. 155, 61 in the course of his employment in the Gold Mines. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent in the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the appellant was that he committed theft of gold of the value of Rs. 155.61 in the course of his employment. He was found guilty of the charge and the punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f. 18-8-1981 was imposed against him. Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, as it stood then read as under : Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. vs Regional Labour Commissioner on 4 July, 1986 "4(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub section (1): xxx xxx xxx (b) the gratuity payable to an employee shall be wholly forfeited : (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment." The above provision is clear. The appellant was entitled to forfeit the whole of the gratuity due to Respondent No. 3 as the offence of theft involved moral turpitude as is evident from Section 378 of the IPC. Section 378 of the I.P.C. reads : "378. Whoever, intendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Permanent Edition, Volume 27A at page 186. They read : " 'Moral turpitude' is anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. In re Williams, 167 page 1149, 1152, 64 CKL 316. XXX XXX XXX 'Moral turpitude' inclues all acts done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. Neibling v. Terry. 117 S.W. 2d. 502 503 352 Mo. 396, 152. A.L.R. 249." (Underlined by us) Learned Counsel submitted that the Court should decide as to whether an offence involved moral turpitude or not, in the light of the meaning given to those words as above. 8. From the above passage, it is clear that anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals involves moral turpitude. Dishonesty is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of theft. If there is no dishonesty in removing or taking a property belonging to another, it constitutes no offence of theft. Therefore, it is clear that when a person is found guilty of the charge of theft, it means, he has acted dishonestly and from this it follows that he has committed an offence involving moral turpitude. 9. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13303 of 19781 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prudence makes no exception. As the very definition of the word 'theft' in Section 378 of the I.P.C. indicates that it is an act of dishonest removal of property belonging to another without his consent, it is not consistent to say that the offence of theft might be dishonest but is not an offence involving moral turpitude. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act which provide for exempting an accused from undergoing the sentence after conviction for an offence constitutes no basis to say that the offence committed, if involved moral turpitude, did not involve moral turpitude. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 13303 of 19781 and hereby over-rule the said decision. 10. Accordingly, we answer the question set out first, as follows : "Theft is an offence involving moral turpitude and consequently if the services of an employee had been terminated for committing theft in the course of his employment, the Gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Act stands wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act." 11. In order that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act applies to a given case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
