9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Labour Court it was not disputed that the dismissal of the workman was on account of misconduct consisting of riotous and disorderly behaviour and assaulting a tea-maker. The Labour Court, relying upon the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 711 decided the question in favour of the workman. Appeal by special leave, was filed in this Court. Allowing the appeal. - Civil Appeal No. 698 of 1968 - - - Dated:- 26-3-1973 - A.N. GROVER, S.N. DWIVEDI, AND VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. JJJ. G. B. Pal,, Bhuvanesh Kumari and 0. C. Mathur, for the appellant. A. S. Nambiyar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J.- This is an appeal by special leave from An aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by its nature disentitles the worker to claim gratuity. Even if the allegation is true the same does not involve any question of moral turpitude or. cause any financial loss to the company. Any allegations of misconduct do not impose (sic) disentitle the workmen for gratuity. Hence in this particular case it is submitted that the worker is entitled for gratuity as claimed. The worker has put in 18 years of service and as such he is entitled to get at the rate of 15 days wages based on last draw wage rate for every completed years of service." In reply, which was filed by the management, the facts which have been set out above and the circumstances in which the dismissal was directed, were fully given. Before the Labour court, there seems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in or near the place of employment, which, though not directly causing damage, is conducive to grave indiscipline. The first should involve no forfeiture, the second may involve forfeiture of the amount equal to the loss directly suffered by the employer in consequence of the misconduct and the third will entail forfeiture of gratuity due to the workman. In other words, according to this decision, if a workman is guilty of a serious misconduct of the third category, then, his gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety. In yet another case in Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. The Workmen, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 935. one of the questions was whether a provision can be made in a gratuity scheme that if the misconduct is a gross one, involving viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
