"8 The object of having gratuity scheme is to provide a retiring benefit to the workman who has rendered long and unblemished service to the employer and thereby contributed to the prosperity of the employer, but it is not correct to say that any misconduct, however grave, may not be visited with the forfeiture of gratuity in view of Section 4(6) of the Act as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. In other words, if the workman is guilt of serious misconduct, then the gratuity can be forfeited in its entirety vide TOURNAMULLA ESTATE vs THEIR WORKMEN It is also a settled law that a bare looking at Section 4(6)(a) shows that the right of the employer to forfeit the amount of earned gratuity sine qua non to the extent of damage or loss so caused but such a power in our considered opinion is not automatic. If the employer fails to prove before the Controlling Authority which is functioning under the Act the extent of damage or loss so caused by the employee because of his act of alleged major misconduct, the right to forfeit the gratuity under Section 4(6)(a) is not available to the employer. In other words, before forfeiting the gratuity amount, the employer should afford an opportunity to the employee to the extent why his amount of gratuity be not forfeited, which leads to the conclusion that if no material is brought on record to show that the service of the employee was terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing damage, loss or destruction of the employer's property, and if the extent of such damage is not quantified, the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) do not come into operation. The statutory provision for forfeiture of gratuity therefore, must be construed strictly and employer, in the eye of law, has to prove before the Controlling Authority, the extent of damages or loss so caused by the employee, because of his act of alleged misconduct, or/and otherwise the employer is not entitled to invoke Section 4(6)(a). Such proof
