The second thing is that the bank has not rejected the application for granting of gratuity and pension benefits. If rejected also it was done without giving the employee any opportunity to be heard or without invoking section 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act which says that gratuity shall be forfeited where the employee has been dismissed for an offence involving moral turpitude. Section 4(6)(a) provides for partial forfeiture to the extent of loss caused to the employer by the conduct of the employee. Still there should be sufficient reasons for forfeiture of gratuity.
In State Bank of Travancore Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner, the Kerala High Court had dismissed the petitionerís plea that the employee was not entitled to gratuity since his services were terminated on charges of misconduct involving riotous and disorderly behavior. The Court had then examined that the punishment of dismissal was a discharge simpliciter with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment. The court also observed that the order of forfeiture of gratuity was communicated to him after the employee submitted his request/ application for grant of gratuity.
It would be worth reading the full text of the above case because the issue raised before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act were not merely whether the terminated employee was entitled to gratuity or not but on the rate on which the amount of gratuity would be calculated. The gratuity rules of the bank stipulated for a higher rate rather than what is statutory as per the Act. That is why I suggested that you should refer to the terms and conditions pertaining to terminal benefits as per settlement in force between your Union and the Management of your Bank.
For your reference I have attached the above mentioned case.