Gratuity denied to an employee terminated due to misconduct: An employee, aggrieved by the termination from service, raised an industrial dispute with the company. The lower most labour court set aside the order of dismissal, but awarded only a one-time compensation of an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the back wages. The Supreme Court heard the arguments on both sides and found that the High Court was wrong to set aside the order of the labour court. Given that, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the labour court and ruled that in order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enough that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry. There must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.
High Court not to interfere in the decisions of the disciplinary authority: A departmental inquiry was conducted against an employee due to certain charges of misconduct. The High Court interfered with the decision of the disciplinary authority and changed the penalty of dismissal to stoppage of 2(two) increments, for a period of 3 (three) years. After hearing the two sides on the matter, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority under each and every circumstance, unless it is found that the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority/employer is wholly disproportionate – to an extent that it shakes the conscience of the High Court – and compels it to interfere and alter the punishment.