The learned companynsel further submits that since numberdamage or loss to, or destruction of, property of the CIVIL APPEAL NO s .
The appellant challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal by filing a Writ Petition which was dismissed.
This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 29.07.2005 passed in W.A. No.
In this round of litigation, number the question is about the appellants claim for gratuity.
2131 of 2002 the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge.
The appellant was ultimately dismissed from service on 20.06.1988.
Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the dismissal of the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by this Court.
2 and of using discourteous language and for other various misconduct.
However, by CIVIL APPEAL NO s .
Thereafter, the appellant unsuccessfully challenged the dismissal of the Writ Petition by filing a Writ Appeal which was dismissed.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
An enquiry was companyducted and, after giving him opportunity of hearing, the enquiry office found him guilty.
An industrial dispute was raised and the Industrial Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal.
4095 OF 2006 allegations against the Managing Director of respondent No.
2 against whose order the appellant has filed a Writ Petition which has been allowed by the learned single Judge of the High Court.
The appellant was charge sheeted for making false CIVIL APPEAL NO s .
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The learned companynsel for the appellant relies on Section 4 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 39 of 1972 which reads as under Section 4 6 Notwithstanding anything companytained in sub section 1 , The gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited If the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly companyduct or any other act of violence on his part, or If the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which companystitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is companymitted by him in the companyrse of his employment.
The appellant herein was an Assistant Editor in Mathrubhumami Printing and Publishing Company Limited, respondent No.
The facts of the case have already been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are number repeating the same here, except wherever necessary.
The claim of the appellant for gratuity was rejected by the Management of respondent No.
4095 OF 2006 the impugned judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.
2131 of 2002.
