How to Legally Withhold Gratuity for a Retired Employee Amid Unfinished Inquiry?

Handling Gratuity Withholding for a Retired Employee

An employee was issued a charge sheet cum suspension pending inquiry for his violent, riotous, and disorderly behavior in January 2015. A subsistence allowance was paid until his retirement, with the suspension revoked after one year. The employee retired before the completion of the inquiry, and a termination letter was given to him as he superannuated on June 30, 2016. The inquiry has not been completed, and proceedings have not yet started. This employee is a trade union leader. Gratuity has not been released due to the non-vacation of the quarter. How can his gratuity be withheld without facing protracted litigation and ensuring validity as per the statute?

It is surprising to me that management wants to avoid protracted litigations when it has already placed an employee under suspension pending inquiry as early as January 2015, knowing well that he was to reach the age of superannuation in June 2016 and permitted him to get superannuated on 30-06-2016 but has not even started the proceedings since then. Now, the management wants to withhold his gratuity for the reason of his non-vacation of the company's quarters! In my opinion, the entire act of the management so far, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged misconduct on the part of the delinquent employee, is a sheer mess-up of the doctrine of disciplinary action apart from being an unfair labor practice.

Termination of Employment and Disciplinary Action

Termination of employment for any reason signifies the total cessation of the contract of employment between the employer and the employee. Then,

1. What do the orders of the employee's termination read - "permitted to retire without prejudice to the pending disciplinary action" OR simply "terminated"?

2. Is there any enabling provision in your standing orders or service rules for such an action?

3. If not, how can an employer continue the disciplinary action after the termination of the employee on attaining the age of superannuation?

4. What prevented the management from the expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings from its commencement of the act of suspension pending inquiry before the employee's superannuation?

5. Was the so-called termination followed by a notice under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972?

By any stretch of reasonableness, anyone would conclude that the present move of the management to forfeit gratuity now smacks of victimization for the simple reason that gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld on the ground of non-vacation of the quarters after retirement. After the retirement of such an employee occupying the quarters, only the relationship of tenant and landlord subsists between the employer and himself. In such a situation, the employer has no option other than obtaining eviction orders against the ex-employee from a Civil Court.

Regards