A recent decision from the Bombay High Court has ruled against Aidem Ventures Pvt. Ltd., which tried to take away gratuity payments from two former employees. The court decided that the company couldn't use the Gratuity Act to support their actions.
On November 21, 2025, Judge Manish Pitale gave the decision on two legal requests filed by Aidem Ventures against their former employees, Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma. The company wanted to keep back gratuity, claiming the employees had acted against their interests.
Aidem Ventures argued that both former employees had broken a rule about keeping company secrets and joined a competing company within a year of leaving. They said this caused them to lose two clients and was an act of "bad behavior." They referred to a specific section of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which allows taking away gratuity for bad behavior during employment.
"Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma took up employment with a rival company in breach of their relieving letter," argued Aidem Ventures.
The court pointed out that the alleged bad behavior happened after Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma left Aidem Ventures, not while they were still working there. The Gratuity Act only allows taking away gratuity if the bad behavior happens while the person is still employed.
Judge Pitale emphasized, "The alleged act involving bad behavior committed by Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma took place after they stopped working for the company."
The court also noted that Aidem Ventures never sent a notice to Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma about taking away their gratuity, which is necessary since gratuity is considered a property right under the Constitution of India.
Both sides referred to past cases. Aidem Ventures mentioned a Supreme Court case to define "bad behavior," while Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma cited another case to argue that gratuity is a protected property right.
The court dismissed the requests, stating that Aidem Ventures couldn't justify their actions under the Gratuity Act. However, it noted that this decision wouldn't affect any civil lawsuits the company might pursue against Darshan Pitale and Deepak Sharma.
"The writ petitions are dismissed," concluded Judge Pitale.
In summary, the court decided that Aidem Ventures was not allowed to take away the gratuity of the former employees because the alleged misconduct happened after they had left the company. This case highlights the importance of understanding employment laws and respecting employee rights even after they leave a company.
