IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 15226 of 2006 BETWEEN: G.B. Shankar Rao, Late G. Balaiah, R/o. Flat No.101, Gharonda Sargam Appatment, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Small Scale Industrial Development, Corporation Ltd, A-3, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500018. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Industries, Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus; (a) Declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the statutory gratuity beneﬁts to the petitioner and other lawful beneﬁts for he is entitiled to as bad, arbitrary and (b)consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the statutory payments of Gratunity etc for the period of work rendered by the petitioner in terms of the Statutory Gratuity Rules and the V.R. Scheme as given in Circular No.SIDC/Estt/VRS/94- 95 dt.15-05-1996. (c)And pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying statutory gratuity beneﬁts to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It appears that the petitioner while serving as Marketing Oﬃcer in the respondent-corporation was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the same, he had ﬁled a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11774 of 1999, wherein the termination notice issued against him was set aside by order dated 22.08.2005 and the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to retire voluntarily under the scheme, which was available up to 31.05.1999 and extend the beneﬁts accrued therefrom. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that, though he has been extended all the voluntary retirement beneﬁts as per the orders of this Court, the gratuity beneﬁts are denied on the ground that some criminal case is pending against him and the charges in the criminal case, if proved, would amount to moral turpitude and therefore, the gratuity could not be paid immediately. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of terminating the services of the petitioner does not arise, as the petitioner already ceased to be an employee of the respondent organization with eﬀect from 31.05.1999 on acceptance of his voluntary retirement. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents, Smt. Uma Devi, strenuously contended that since the criminal case is pending, as the same arose out of the misconduct of the petitioner while in service, and if the petitioner is convicted, the respondents are entitled to withhold the gratuity, as conviction would amount to moral turpitude. 4. I am of the opinion that once the petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily and all his benefits under the scheme were paid, the question of terminating his services further does not arise. Section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) reads as under: “4. Payment of gratuity: - 1… 2… 3… 4… 5… 6. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) – (a)… (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.” 5. A plain reading of the above provision would indicate that if the services of such employee are terminated for his involvement in a case of moral turpitude alone, the employer is entitled to withhold the gratuity but not otherwise. Such a situation does not arise in a case of this nature, as the petitioner is no more in service of the respondent-corporation in view of the earlier order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily and pursuant to which all other benefits were paid. At the most, even if the petitioner is convicted, he may have to face the consequence of such conviction by a criminal Court but the question of terminating his services and the resultant withholding of gratuity under Section 4(6) (b) of the Act does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of gratuity without reference to the pendency of the criminal case and its result. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to pay gratuity to the petitioner as per his entitlement and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU, J October 20, 2008 DSK