IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9005 of 2009(U)
1. JOSE KURIAKOSE,KODIMATTATHIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OP.RUBBER MARKETING
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OOF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 9005 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was a heavy goods driver working under the 1st
respondent. He retired from the services on 31/08/2008 after
rendering 34 years of services. According to the petitioner, he is
entitled to an amount of Rs.2,77,026/- towards gratuity, which has
not been paid so far. He made representations to the 2nd
respondent and Ext.P4 is one of the representations. Payment was
not made, and therefore, the writ petition is filed.
2. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated that during the
period when the petitioner was in service, due to sickness he
wanted an office posting. It is stated that accordingly he was
posted as Branch Manager, and in that capacity he was purchasing,
storing and selling materials. Therefore, an audit has to be
completed by the Co-operative Department. It is stated that the
audit has not been completed, and therefore, the respondents are
not in a position to settle the liability of the petitioner.
WP(C) No.9005/2009
-2-
3. The claim made by the petitioner is for gratuity, and the
justification offered by the respondents is the delay in completing
the audit. Forfeiture of gratuity is possible only under Section 4(6)
of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which reads as under:-
“Section 4(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1);
(a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have
been terminated for any act, wilfull omission or negligence
causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property
belonging to the employer’ shall be forfeited to the extent of the
damage or loss so caused;
(b) the gratuity payable to an employee (may be wholly
or partially 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.”
4. In this case, the respondents have no claim that the case
of the petitioner will come within the purview of Section 4(6) of the
Act. Therefore, the delay in completing the audit cannot be a
reason for delaying payment of gratuity.
WP(C) No.9005/2009
-3-
5. The petitioner claims that leave surrender benefits are
not released. This of course stands on different footing and has to
await competition of audit.
6. Therefore, the writ petition will stand disposed of
directing the respondents to release the gratuity amount that is due
to the petitioner.
7. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
before the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent shall ensure that
the payment is made to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg