argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Bank has no force. Regarding other submissions raised by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitionerBank, it is argued by Shri Gaurav Srivastava that the things have to be examined in their entirety that the services were governed by the Memorandum of Settlement, clause 12.2 whereof contained in Chapter XII, clearly provides that there will be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct, except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the Bank and in that cases also to that extent only. It has been argued that the loss allegedly occurred to the Bank was only to the extent of Rs. 1,500/- (rupees one thousand five hundred only) or Rs. 9,000/- (rupees nine thousand only), and even if, the findings recorded in the termination order are treated to be final, it would be a case where, at the most, gratuity to the extent of aforesaid financial loss occurred to the Bank could be withheld, but remaining amount was bound to be paid to the employee. However, regarding bar of limitation, learned counsel for the respondent-employee has argued that the order of Appellate Authority was on merits also and since everything is established on record, no error has been committed by the Appellate Authority in confirming the order of the Controlling Authority.
