IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA WPA/397/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 SARAN KUMAR NANDA … PETITIONER Vs. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS Petitioner (in person) : Mr. Saran Kumar Nanda For the respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Respondent no.3 ( in person) : Mr. Raghunath Guchhait Heard on : August 31, 2026 Judgment delivered on : August 31, 2026 AMRITA SINHA, J. 1. The order dated 13th July, 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (HQ) affirming the order dated 06th February, 2026 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is impugned in the instant writ petition by the proprietor/owner under whom the respondent no. 3 was employed. 2. According to the employer, the employee is guilty of moral turpitude. He was caught red handed on 30th October, 2019 in the act of throwing away new spare parts in the dustbin with the 2 intention of selling them off in the open market at a later point of time. Throwing away of new spare parts would result in financial loss to the employer. 3. Upon being caught, the employee submitted a written confession on the same date admitting his mistake. Since thereafter the employee never turned up in the office of the petitioner for continuing with his job. Gratuity will not be payable to the employee as he is guilty of moral turpitude. 4. The employee with mala fide intention approached the Labour Commissioner alleging non-payment of wages. The petitioner submits that there is no question of payment of wages after 30th October 2019 as the employee never reported to duty. 5. It has been submitted that the employee never lodged any complaint before the police mentioning that the confessional statement was obtained upon exercising force, coercion or undue influence. As the employee admitted his guilt, there is no requirement of drawing up any further proceeding against him. According to the petitioner, the authority ought not to have passed order directing payment of gratuity. 6. In support of such submission, the petitioner relies on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deputy Commissioner, Kvs and others vs. J. Hussain reported in 3 (2013) 10 SCC 106 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. 7. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Western Coal Fields Limited vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 345 wherein the issue of permissibility of forfeiture of gratuity, in the event of termination of service on misconduct without there being any conviction in a criminal case or even a criminal proceeding having been initiated was adjudicated. The court held that when the appointment itself is invalid for reason of suppression of actual date of birth and production of forged certificate, there is no question of payment of gratuity to a terminated employee. 8. Prayer has been made to set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Controlling Authority. 9. The employee being the respondent No.3 appears in person and relies upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by him. 10. It has been submitted that the employer never terminated his engagement formally. The confessional statement relied upon by the employer was obtained by exercising force and upon threat of 4 termination from service. The respondent No.3 was entrusted with several duties and responsibilities. He admitted his mistake but his admission has been illegally sought to be construed as a confessional statement of an illegal act. It was only for sustaining his livelihood, the respondent No.3 in his own handwriting, submitted the statement. 11. On receiving the statement from the respondent no.3, the petitioner, without granting any opportunity to the respondent no.3 to defend his case, intentionally and deliberately disengaged him from service. The respondent no.3 was not paid his wages for the month of October 2019 for which the employee was compelled to approach the Labour Commissioner for payment of wages. After full-fledged hearing, the Labour Commissioner passed direction for payment. Two cheques were issued by the employer, but only one has been honored and the other dishonored. The cheque was returned to the employee by his banker with the endorsement ‘stoppage of payment’. 12. Despite rendering service for more than fourteen years, gratuity was not paid to the respondent No.3 for which a proceeding was initiated before the Controlling Authority where direction was passed for payment of gratuity amount along with interest from 30th November, 2019 till the date of actual payment. 5 13. The respondent no.3 categorically denies and disputes the allegation of moral turpitude. He, however, admits that a mistake may have been committed by him in view of the immense work pressure upon him, but there was no mala fide or ill-intention on his part to cause any financial loss to the employer. 14. Prayer has been made to direct the authority to release the gratuity which has since been secured by the employer. 15. Learned advocate representing the official respondents submits that in the absence of proper proof of moral turpitude resulting in termination, the employer would be legally bound to pay the statutory dues of the employee as he rendered service for more than fourteen years. 16. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the materials placed before the Court it appears that, the employer holds on to the confessional statement admittedly written by the employee in his own handwriting on 30th October, 2019 admitting his guilt. 18. According to the petitioner, the employee being well aware that he was caught red handed at the time of committing the illegal act of throwing away new spare parts in the dustbin with the intention to sell it off in the open market at a later stage, he 6 deliberately did not turn up for work on and from the next day. The petitioner contends that the employee never lodged any complaint before the police mentioning that the confessional statement was obtained by exercising force, coercion or undue influence. As per the employer, facts admitted need not be proved. 19. It appears that though there is no complaint from the side of the employee, but at the same time, there is nothing on record from the side of the employer to show that any opportunity was granted to the employee to defend the allegation of moral turpitude leveled against him. There is not a single scrap of paper to suggest that the service of the employee stood terminated on and from 30th October, 2019. 20. The petitioner submits that the employee fell on the feet of the employer and prayed for mercy before him. Showing lenience to the employee, complaint was not lodged before the police. Neither any criminal proceeding was initiated against the employee. 21. Though the employer contends that on or from 30th October, 2019, the employee abandoned the job and never reported to work, but to prove such statement, the employer ought to have maintained certain records. 22. The fact finding authority, being the Controlling Authority after a full-fledged hearing formed to a considered opinion that the 7 employer would be liable to pay gratuity to the employee. The said order of the Controlling Authority has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 23. In exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would be required to adjudicate as to whether the finding arrived at by the competent authority was in accordance with the law or not. Without any valid document to show the deliberate absence of the employee from attending service, the allegation of moral turpitude levelled by the employer against the employee cannot be said to be proved. 24. As per the Act, gratuity is payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. The alleged confessional statement dated 30th October, 2019, heavily relied upon by the petitioner, clearly mentions that the employee is in service since 2005. Assuming that his service stood formally terminated on 30th October, 2019, then also he would be entitled to gratuity. 25. According to the Act, gratuity of an employee may be forfeited for any act of negligence causing damage or loss to the employer. Gratuity can also be forfeited if the service of the employer is terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude committed by him in the course of his employment. 8 26. In the case at hand, the employer did not issue any formal letter or order of disengagement or termination of service of the employee allegedly on the ground that the employee himself did not turn up for duty. The said alibi of the employer cannot come to his aid for the purpose of not issuing a formal order of termination of the employee. 27. The petitioner has also not disputed the period of service of the employee. The Controlling Authority arrived at a conclusive finding that the employee was in service for more than fourteen years prior to his alleged termination. 28. The precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in the matter of Western Coal Fields Limited (supra) deals with a case where a delinquent employee of the bank was dismissed from service pursuant to allegation of misconduct which stood proved in a departmental proceeding. 29. In the instance case, there is no proceeding at all. There is not a single document to show that the service of the employee was terminated in accordance with law. Accordingly, the ratio laid down in the cited judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner. 30. In J. Hussain (supra), the Court specifically held that interference in judicial review can be made only if the punishment imposed is found to be irrational or outrageous. 9 31. Here, the employee does not challenge any punishment. In fact, there is no order of punishment at all. The issue is the gratuity amount that is payable to an employee on his termination in terms of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 32. There is nothing on record to suggest that the employee did not render more than fourteen years of service. There is also no proceeding or order whereby the allegation of moral turpitude levelled against the employee has been proved. The allegation of the employer seeking to deny the rightful claim of the employee for payment of gratuity cannot be taken to be sacrosanct or gospel truth. The allegation ought to have been proved before a competent forum. 33. In the absence of proper proof of moral turpitude, the employee would be entitled to receive gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the employer ought to have given notice to the employee of the proposed action of forfeiting gratuity. Any decision to forfeit gratuity can be taken only after affording opportunity of hearing to the employee. The same has not been done in the instant case. 34. The Controlling Authority upon perusal of all details and upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties have come to a considered opinion that the employee would be eligible to 10 receive gratuity and passed order accordingly. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority. 35. This Court does not find any infirmity with the direction passed by either the Controlling Authority or the Appellate Authority. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 is extremely limited. No case has been made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court. 36. The amount of gratuity assessed by the Controlling Authority has already been secured by the employer. 37. The Controlling Authority is directed to release the gratuity amount to the respondent No. 3/employee upon compliance of all necessary formalities at the earliest. 38. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 39. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the connected application being I.A. CAN/1/2026 stands disposed of. 40. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 41. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( AMRITA SINHA, J. )