By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > High Court > Karnataka High Court > Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
High CourtKarnataka High CourtNews

Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: January 26, 2025 10:27 pm
Amna Kabeer
6 months ago
Share
Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings: Karnataka High Court
SHARE

Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery Proceedings

The Karnataka High Court ruled that an employer cannot withhold the gratuity of a dismissed employee without initiating recovery proceedings for alleged losses caused by the employee’s actions.

Contents
Employer Cannot Withhold Gratuity Without Recovery ProceedingsCase SummaryCourt FindingsFinal OrderSuggestion to Employer


Case Summary


Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition by Central Warehousing Corporation challenging an order by the Controlling Authority. The authority directed the corporation to pay Rs. 7,88,165 with 10% interest from 12.12.2013 to G.C. Bhat, a dismissed employee.
The corporation claimed that the dismissal was due to misappropriation, causing a loss of Rs. 1.71 crore. It argued that it was entitled to withhold the gratuity amount to offset the losses.


Court Findings


The court observed that the corporation did not initiate recovery proceedings for the alleged losses.
Without such proceedings, retaining or forfeiting gratuity is not justified.
Dismissal serves as punishment for misconduct, but it does not compensate for employer losses.
Employers must provide the employee an opportunity to contest in recovery proceedings before adjusting dues.


Final Order


The High Court upheld the Controlling Authority’s decision, stating that withholding gratuity without adjudication of losses is unlawful. The court extended the deadline for payment of gratuity to 31.01.2025.


Suggestion to Employer


The court urged the corporation to initiate recovery proceedings in future cases of misappropriation to address such issues properly.

You Might Also Like

How To File A Case Under The Employee State Insurance (ESI)?

Vulgar Chatting with Other Men Amounts to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh HC

Right to Voluntarily Close Business Under Article 19(1)(g): SC

Human Rights Courts Under the Protection of Human Rights Act: Structure and Jurisdiction (Section 30)

Section 142 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS) – Power To Release Persons Imprisoned For Failing To Give Security.

TAGGED:CompanyEmployeeEmploymentForfeitureGratuityHigh CourtKarnataka High court
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article NDPS Act Section 52A Of NDPS, Non-Compliance Not Always Fatal: Supreme Court Ruling
Next Article MP High Court Violations Of Service Rules Do Not Qualify As Public Duty Under Article 226: MP High Court
1 Comment
  • Pingback: Daughters Born Before 2004 Partition Cannot Claim Father's ...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Supreme Court of India
News

Supreme Court Declares Royalty Under MMDR Act Is Not A Tax

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
12 months ago
Guest Faculty Not a ‘Workman’ Under Industrial Disputes Act : Calcutta High Court
Court Has Power To Confiscate Vehicle Even If Owner Is Not Prosecuted: Punjab & Haryana HC
Must Avoid Recording The Full Name and Address Of POCSO Victims: J&K High Court Orders Immediate Redaction of Rape Victim’s Name
Supreme Court Imposes Fine On Gujarat Police Officer For Contempt, Accepts Magistrate’s Apology
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Section 149 – Code of Civil Procedure – Power To Make Up Deficiency Of Court-Fees.

Section 148A – Code of Civil Procedure – Right To Lodge A Caveat.

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?