- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 51200 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, KIMCO BUILDING, DEEPANJALINAGARA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ...PETITIONER (BY MS H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT REGION 1, KARMEEKA BHAWAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029. 2. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT DIVISION-1, KARMEEKA KALYANA MANDALI, OFFICE COMPLEX, TUMKUR ROAD, PEENYA I STAGE, BANGALORE - 566 058. 3. RANGASWAMY, S/O LATE VEERAKEMPAIAH, ADULT, Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 R/O KOLUR VILLAGE, RAMOHALLI POST, VIA KENGERI, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 560 060. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI R SOMASUNDR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 19.03.2013 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE R- 2.QUASH THE ORDER DTD23.04.2015 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority marked at Annexure-F and the order dated 23.04.2015 marked at Annexure-G passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972'). 3. Respondent No.3 was the employee of the petitioner - Corporation. He was dismissed from services on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 the charges that he has produced fake certificate while seeking employment. The penalty of dismissal was the subject matter of the industrial dispute in I.D.No.42/2010. The workman's claim before the Labour Court was rejected vide award dated 27.11.2013 and penalty of dismissal is confirmed. It is stated that both writ petitions and writ appeals challenging the award passed by the Labour Court are dismissed. 4. The petitioner issued notice on 23.09.2010 asking the respondent - workman to show cause as to why his gratuity should not be confiscated under Section 4(6)(b) of the Act of 1972. The workman responded to the said notice vide reply dated 04.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner in terms of the order dated 19.11.2010 confiscated the gratuity payable. The workman raised a dispute before the Controlling Authority. 5. In terms of the impugned order dated 19.03.2013, the Controlling Authority directed payment of gratuity, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 Authority in terms of the order dated 23.04.2015, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal directing the petitioner to pay the gratuity amount as claimed by the respondent - workman. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1972 enables the employer to forfeit the gratuity amount in case the employee is terminated because of an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude, if such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs Manohar Govinda Fulzele1. It is the contention that there is no need to file a criminal complaint against the workman for having committed an offence involving moral turpitude and since he is terminated on account of misconduct which involves moral 1 (2025) 3 S.C.R. 183 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 turpitude, the petitioner is justified in confiscating the gratuity amount. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 on the other hand would submit that the respondent - workman has taken all his papers with necessary "No Objection" long back and he has no instructions to argue the matter. It is his further submission that he should be given three weeks time to issue notice to the respondent - workman. 9. Since it is submitted that respondent - workman has taken papers long back along with "No Objection", this Court is of the view that further notice is not required to respondent No.3. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 had also submitted that respondent No.3 has withdrawn the amount deposited before the Appellate Authority and the petition becomes infructuous. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 11. Assuming that the respondent - workman has withdrawn the amount deposited before the Appellate Authority, the present petition does not become infructuous. In case the petitioner succeeds then the respondent - workman has to repay the said amount which he has received by way of restitution. 12. Coming to the merits of the case, there is no dispute that the respondent No.3 was terminated from service for having produced fake certificate seeking employment. There is no difficulty in holding that the said act of respondent - workman constitutes offence involving moral turpitude and though it is urged that the document was produced earlier to the employment and not during the course of employment, such technical contention cannot be considered, as the respondent - workman continued to work in the petitioner-Corporation based on the said certificate till he was dismissed from services. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case in Western Coal Fields Ltd. supra has held that to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 attract Section 4(6)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1972, there need not be a criminal complaint alleging moral turpitude. Since the termination is on account of the fake certificate produced by the respondent - workman, this Court is of the view that the dismissal of the respondent-workman on the charges of producing the fake certificate constitutes offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, the ratio in the aforementioned judgment in Western Coal Fields Ltd. supra squarely applies to the case on hand. 14. This being the position, this Court has to hold that Section 4(6)(d)(ii) of the Act of 1972 does apply and employer is justified in forfeiting the gratuity. Hence, the impugned orders have to be set-aside. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 19.03.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority marked at Annexure-F and the order dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25028 WP No. 51200 of 2015 23.04.2015 marked at Annexure-G passed by the Appellate Authority are quashed. (iii) Respondent - workman shall reimburse the amount to the petitioner - Corporation within 30 days from today along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his withdrawal till the date of payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP