IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17810 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th July, 2010. The Regional Manager, OIC Petitioner through Mr. T.S.Gujral, Advocate Versus Shri V.K.Wadhwa & Ors. Respondents through Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The Oriental Insurance Company through its Regional Manager impugns the orders dated 19.9.2007 [Annexure P-7] and 29.07.2008 [Annexure P-8] passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner [Central], Chandigarh, whereby claim of the respondent, who has unfortunately passed away during the pendency of these proceedings, for payment of withheld amount of gratuity, has been allowed and the appeal against the said order preferred by the Petitioner – Insurance Company has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner- V.K.Wadhwa [since deceased] joined the services of the petitioner Company as a Development Officer. He was charge-sheeted for gross-misconduct pertaining to the alleged issuance of 112 cover notes with dishonest intention. A departmental inquiry was held and the charges having been proved, he was removed from service vide an order dated 25.3.2004 [Annexure P-1]. The appeal preferred by the delinquent employee was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 8.7.2004 [Annexure P-2]. The delinquent employee thereafter moved an application before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act for the release of withheld amount of his gratuity. The petitioner Company took an objection that since the employee was 'removed' from service on account of 'gross misconduct' which also led to huge losses to the Company, it was well within its right to withhold the payment of Gratuity. The nature of misconduct committed by the employee was also elaborated. On a true interpretation of its provisions, the Controlling Authority held the Payment of Gratuity Act being a piece of welfare Legislation, the payment of Gratuity could not be withheld on account of the misconduct etc. unless such withholding is justified on a ground specified under the Act itself. The Controlling Authority relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University v Sitlaprasad Nagendra C., AIR 2001 SC, 2433 and directed the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,551/- to the employee along with simple interest @ 10% w.e.f. March, 2004. The petitioner went in appeal but the Appellate Authority also vide its order dated 29.07.2008 [Annexure P-8] dismissed the same, giving rise to these proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. In my considered view, the gratuity was earned by the deceased employee on the basis of the length of his service. The misconduct committed by him had its own consequences like removal from service or non-payment of retiral dues. The gratuity earned by an employee is a self-acquired asset and owing to the object of the social welfare Legislation, its payment can be allowed to be withheld only to the extent of the actual loss caused to the Employer, if any. No such loss has been proved by the petitioner in the instant case before the Controlling Authority by leading any cogent evidence. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a sum of Rs.2,72,474/- towards payment of the gratuity along with interest as ordered vide the impugned orders has already been deposited by the petitioner with the Regional Labour Commissioner [Central], Chandigarh, vide cheque No. 045155 dated 25.10.2007. He has also handed-over a photo copy of the cheque. In this view of the matter and while dismissing the writ petition, it is directed that the amount deposited by the petitioner may be released in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee within a period two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. July 28, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE