IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16818 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 17, 2011. The Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The Appellate Authority and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate, for Mr.H.K.Brinda, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- 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 third respondent joined the petitioner-Sugar Mill as a Centre Incharge (Seasonal) w.e.f. 7.11.2003. His services were later on terminated w.e.f. 10.11.2005 on the ground of production of two fraudulent birth certificates by him. Since the petitioner-mill with-held the respondent No.3's gratuity on the premise that his misconduct involved 'moral turpitude' within the meaning of Section 4 (6) (b) (ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the aggrieved employee approached the Controlling Authority under the Act who vide its order dated 11.2.2009 accepted the claim of respondent No.3 which has been C.W.P.No .16818 of 2009 2 further upheld by the Appellate Authority under the Act. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused. The contention that the production of two fraudulent birth certificates by respondent No.3 amounted to an offence involving 'moral turpitude' within the meaning of the Act, would be too far fetched to be accepted. Suffice it to say that respondent No.3 definitely has one date of birth and out of the two birth certificates, one was undoubtedly correct. The submission of second birth certificate though might be a 'misconduct' on his part for which he has already faced the civil consequences, it would be too unreasonable to hold that it also amounted to an offence involving 'moral turpitude'. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, thus, cannot be accepted. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits and rightly so that respondent No.3 can at the best be granted gratuity for the maximum period of 42 years on the assumption that he entered the service at the minimum age of 18 years and retired on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years. Since respondent No.3 was a seasonal employee, he would be entitled to 7 days wages for each season as prescribed under Section 4 (2) of the Act and that the petitioner- management is willing to pay the gratuity amount to him as per the said prescribed rate. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 though contends that respondent No.3 is entitled to gratuity equivalent to 15 days wages for C.W.P.No .16818 of 2009 3 each year of service, he could not dispute the fact that respondent No.3 himself in the application moved before the Controlling Authority (Annexure P-4) has described himself a 'seasonal employee'. That being so, his claim for gratuity has to be determined by treating him as a seasonable employee only. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned orders dated 11.2.2009 and 21.10.2009 (Annexures P-5 and P-8, respectively) are modified and it is held that respondent No.3 shall be paid the arrears of gratuity for the service period of 42 years and by treating him a seasonal employee. The gratuity amount shall be paid alongwith interest at the statutory rate, however, after adjusting the amount already paid/deposited, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. It is further directed that in case any excess amount has been paid to respondent No.3 under the orders of the authorities below, the petitioner-mill shall be entitled to seek recovery to that extent. Dasti. March 17, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE