JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation and Ms. Kachchhi, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner corporation has challenged order dated 22.5.2007 passed in Gratuity Application No. 57 of 2006 as well as the order dated 7.3.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 67 of 2007 whereby the Controlling Authority directed the petitioner corporation to pay Rs. 66,382/- towards gratuity to the claimant and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. 3. So far as the facts involved in present case are concerned, it has emerged from the submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that one Mr. Pitambar Ambaram was an employee of the petitioner corporation. In light of the medical certificate, the said employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram was declared unfit to continue in service and an order was passed declaring and treating the said employee as medically unfit for service w.e.f. 29.4.1983. 3.1 Thereafter present respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground as heir/ dependent of said Mr. Pitambar Ambaram. 3.2 It appears that the petitioner corporation accepted her application and granted appointment to the claimant on compassionate ground w.e.f. 1.6.1983. 3.3 It appears that sometime after the claimant was appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner corporation received a complaint where the complainant alleged and informed the corporation that the claimant was neither dependent and she is not even family member of the employee (i.e. Mr. Pitambar Ambaram) and she secured the appointment on misrepresentation. 3.4 When the petitioner corporation received such complaint, it issued a charge-sheet dated 27.5.1986 against the claimant and in pursuance of the said charge-sheet dated 27.5.1986, domestic enquiry was conducted against present claimant. On conclusion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings/report dated 21.5.1987. 3.5 After considering the material on record of the domestic enquiry and the findings/ report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed penal order dated 9.11.1992 and removed the claimant from service. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said penal order dated 9.11.1992, the claimant instituted proceeding by way of civil suit in City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 584 of 1993. 3.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said penal order dated 9.11.1992, the claimant instituted proceeding by way of civil suit in City Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 584 of 1993. 3.7 The learned City Civil Court granted interim relief to the claimant/plaintiff and that, therefore, the claimant was continued in service. 3.8 Ultimately, the said Civil Suit No. 584 of 1993 came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 21.2.2003 on ground of want of jurisdiction. However, while dismissing the suit on ground of lack of jurisdiction, the learned City Civil Court extended the order of interim relief/stay order dated 15.7.2003. 3.9 Thereafter, the claimant instituted proceeding before the learned Labour Court. The dispute was registered as Reference (LCA) No. 718 of 2003. Subsequently, the claimant withdrew the said Reference No. 718 of 2003 on 14.7.2006. 3.10 In the interregnum, when the said order granted by the learned City Civil Court or the learned Labour Court was not in force, the corporation passed order dated 22.8.2003. 3.11 After conclusion of said proceeding, the claimant instituted gratuity claim application before the Controlling Authority appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3.12 The said gratuity claim application was registered as Application No. 57 of 2006. In the said application, the claimant demanded Rs.60,480/- towards gratuity. The Controlling Authority passed order dated 22.5.2007 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 60,382/-towards gratuity to the claimant. 3.13 The petitioner filed appeal against the said order which was rejected by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 7.3.2008 and the Controlling Authority's order came to be confirmed. 4. In this background, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. 5. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation submitted that the claimant had secured appointment with the corporation on misrepresentation and when the said misrepresentation came to the notice of the corporation disciplinary action was taken after conducting enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry, wherein the claimant was granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing and defence, the appointment (granted on compassionate ground) terminated by way of dismissal and therefore, the claimant is not entitled for gratuity, however, the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the said facts and relevant aspects and passed the impugned orders. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation relied on the decision in the case of The Management of Tournamulla Estate v. Workmen, (1973) 2 SCC 502 . 5.1 Learned advocate for the claimant submitted that it is not in dispute that the claimant worked with the corporation from 1983 to 22.8.2003 and that, therefore, the claimant is entitled for gratuity for the period during which she actually served. She submitted that after November 1992 she was continued in service in light of interim relief granted by the Court. 5.2 The learned advocate for the respondent did not dispute the fact that the suit was dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 21.2.2003 and subsequently, the claimant had, on her own volition, withdrawn the reference proceeding on 14.7.2006. 5.3 The learned advocate for the respondent did not dispute the conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report, more particularly the conclusion that she was not the heir/dependent of the employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram. Except the submission that since the claimant worked from 1982 to November 1992 and thereafter by virtue of interim relief she worked until August 2003, the claimant is entitled for gratuity, any other submissions are not made by learned advocate for the claimant. 6. I have considered the submissions by learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent and I have also considered the material on record including the orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority. 7. In present case, the Controlling Authority has based its findings and final directions only on one premise, viz. that since the claimant had actually worked with the corporation and she was continued in employment for more than 5 years the claimant should be granted gratuity for the period during which she worked with the corporation. 8. Fraud and misrepresentation, once established in accordance with law, vitiates everything. 9. In present case, it is pertinent to note that the employee of the corporation, i.e. Mr. Pitambar Ambaram was declared unfit and he was relieved from the service w.e.f. 29.4.1983 on the said ground. 9.1 Immediately thereafter the claimant tendered an application on 2.5.1983 and claimed appointment on compassionate ground by claiming that she was wife of the employee who was declared unfit and relieved from the service on the said ground. 10. Pitambar Ambaram was declared unfit and he was relieved from the service w.e.f. 29.4.1983 on the said ground. 9.1 Immediately thereafter the claimant tendered an application on 2.5.1983 and claimed appointment on compassionate ground by claiming that she was wife of the employee who was declared unfit and relieved from the service on the said ground. 10. It is baffling, but it is a fact demonstrated from the record, that the corporation either for unexplained and undisclosed reasons or without verification of the record (Service Book etc. of the employee who was relieved on the ground of being unfit) accepted the claimant's application for appointment on compassionate ground and also granted appointment w.e.f. 1.6.1983 and thereafter the claimant continued in service till 1986 until the corporation received a complaint informing the corporation that the claimant who was appointed was neither wife of the employee (who was relieved from the service) nor she was dependent of the said employee nor even a family member. It was only thereafter that the corporation instituted domestic enquiry after issuing charge-sheet dated 27.5.1986. 10.1 On conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, Enquiry Officer submitted his findings/report, holding that the claimant was guilty of misrepresentation and fraud. 10.2 From the finding of the Enquiry Officer, it has emerged that the claimant who secured an appointment on compassionate ground in the aforesaid manner is, actually, wife of a person named Mr. Panachand. 10.3 It appears that during the domestic enquiry, the claimant herself admitted before the Enquiry Officer that Mr. Panachand is her husband. 10.4 It is interesting to note that said Mr. Panachand is also an employee of the corporation. 10.5 The claimant appears to have claimed before the Enquiry Officer that without dissolving her marriage and without seeking divorce, she had abandoned her husband i.e. said Mr. Panachand. 10.6 Said Mr. Panachand was examined during domestic enquiry and he had admitted that the claimant is his wife. Photographs and name and details of the claimant were found in the Service Book of said Mr. Panachand. It was in light of such facts and the material on record that the Enquiry Officer recorded his conclusions. 11. Panachand. 10.6 Said Mr. Panachand was examined during domestic enquiry and he had admitted that the claimant is his wife. Photographs and name and details of the claimant were found in the Service Book of said Mr. Panachand. It was in light of such facts and the material on record that the Enquiry Officer recorded his conclusions. 11. At this stage, it is necessary to recall that the suit proceedings instituted by the claimant came to be dismissed by the learned City Civil Court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, whereas the claimant had herself withdrawn the reference case (industrial dispute) which was instituted by her after the civil suit was dismissed. 11.1 Any other proceedings against the termination order passed by the corporation and against the findings/conclusions of the Enquiry Officer was not and have not been instituted by the claimant. 12. Thus, the findings and conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the termination order passed by the corporation attained finality and the misrepresentation by the claimant (for securing appointment on compassionate ground) is proved and that finding of fact also has attained finality. Rather the facts about misrepresentation are, in substance and effect, admitted. 12.1 Actually, even the claimant has not claimed or asserted that she is legally wedded wife of the said employee (who was relieved upon being declared unfit). 12.2 It is necessary to examine the Controlling Authority's order in light of the above discussed facts. 13. As mentioned earlier, the Controlling Authority has proceeded on single and solitary ground viz. that since the claimant had worked with the corporation for more than 5 years and she is eligible and entitled to claim and receive gratuity under the Act. 13.1 At this stage, it is necessary to also recall that the claimant secured appointment on compassionate ground, i.e. by representing herself as dependent (wife) of the employee, i.e. Mr. Pitambar Ambaram. 14. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account the definitions under Section 2(e) and Section 2(h). 13.1 At this stage, it is necessary to also recall that the claimant secured appointment on compassionate ground, i.e. by representing herself as dependent (wife) of the employee, i.e. Mr. Pitambar Ambaram. 14. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to take into account the definitions under Section 2(e) and Section 2(h). The said sections read thus: "2(e) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other establishment to which this Act applies, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity. 2(h) "family", in relation to an employee, shall be deemed to consist of-- (i) in the case of a male employee, himself, his wife, his children, whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents and the dependent parents of his wife and the widow and children of his predeceased son, if any, (ii) in the case of a female employee, herself, her husband, her children, whether married or unmarried, her dependent parents and the dependent parents of her husband and the widow and children of her predeceased son, if any;" 15. The definition of the term 'family' under Section 2(h) does not take in its fold a woman who is not legally wedded wife of concerned employee. 15.1 On inquiry the Court is informed that a woman who is not legally wedded wife of concerned employee is not included within the meaning of term 'dependent' under the policy settled by the corporation for appointment on compassionate ground. 15.2 Despite such fact, the claimant who was not eligible for and entitled for appointment on compassionate ground (because she was not legally wedded wife and/or dependent of the said employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram) she represented herself as wife/dependent of the said employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram and she committed misrepresentation with the petitioner corporation to secure appointment on compassionate ground and she secured employment (on compassionate ground). Thus, her appointment was, inherently and from initial stage, secured by misrepresentation and/or fraud. Pitambar Ambaram) she represented herself as wife/dependent of the said employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram and she committed misrepresentation with the petitioner corporation to secure appointment on compassionate ground and she secured employment (on compassionate ground). Thus, her appointment was, inherently and from initial stage, secured by misrepresentation and/or fraud. 15.3 Therefore, the said appointment, from initial stage, is illegal and must be treated as nullity since the appointment was secured by misrepresentation. 16. Such appointment i.e. appointment secured with such means and method cannot earn - for the appointment - any right. 17. It is pertinent that so far as the factum about misrepresentation is concerned the said aspect, in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer and in light of her own admission before the Enquiry Officer as well as in view of the statement of her husband Mr. Panachand before the Enquiry Officer is not in dispute. Even otherwise, the claimant has not instituted any proceeding against the said findings and/or against the conclusions of the corporation that she had committed misrepresentation for securing the job on compassionate ground. Such appointment, as mentioned above, is nullity and it would not earn for the appointee or confer on the appointee any right, more so when such misrepresentation is perpetrated in matter of appointment on compassionate ground. 18. Though it is true that after the corporation passed the order granting her appointment on compassionate ground and after the corporation appointed her w.e.f. 1.6.1983, the claimant may contend that she was an employee and she would come within the purview of the term 'employee' defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and therefore, her claim (for gratuity) has to be treated as claim by an "employee" and not by family member. 19. The aspect of the family member is taken into account in present case only to bring out the appointment of the claimant was untenable under the corporation's policy for compassionate appointment and in ordinary circumstances i.e. without misrepresentation, the claimant could not have claimed and could not have secured appointment on compassionate ground under the policy (in place of the employee Mr. Pitambar Ambaram). She could secure the appointment only on account of misrepresentation. 20. Pitambar Ambaram). She could secure the appointment only on account of misrepresentation. 20. Therefore, the actual question which is required to be considered is as to whether a person who has secured appointment by unjust means and by misrepresentation and whose service is terminated for such action and conduct would be entitled for gratuity under the Act and whether such person, after securing appointment with such means and method would come within the purview of the term "employee" defined under Section 2(e) of the Act and whether on completion of service for 5 years such person would acquire eligibility for gratuity. In the opinion of this Court the reply to the said issue is, No. 21. The Act is a social welfare legislation and enacted with object of providing social and economical security to employees after retirement. Before the Act was introduced and brought in force, gratuity was considered payment for long and loyal and meritorious service with the employer. True it is that after implementing the Act, the gratuity does not retain its original character and philosophy originally and now, it is a statutory right of an employee to claim and receive gratuity if the eligibility and qualifying criteria as prescribed under the Act are fulfilled and complied. 22. The question, however, is that a person who fraudulently or by misrepresentation secures appointment and by such means he acquires the position or status of an "employee" whether he/she would be entitled for the benefit of gratuity available under the Act. 23. In view of this Court, when it is established that the appointment was secured by misrepresentation or fraudulently, then, the initial appointment itself would stand vitiated and would be rendered nullity. This is more true in case where a person secures appointment not in ordinary course of selection and recruitment, but on compassionate ground. The appointment and entire tenure of service - employment of the person who indulges in misrepresentation and/or fraud to secure appointment in public employment on compassionate ground and approaches the employer (namely the State or the local authority or any other public employment employer) with unclean hands and with dishonest intention and incorrect declaration of relevant facts would be non-est and nullity and such employment does not earn any right. The fact that the appointment on compassionate ground are ordinarily granted without traversing normal selection and recruitment procedure and without giving opportunity to prospective candidates cannot be ignored or overlooked or discounted while considering the claim for gratuity by a person who secured appointment on compassionate ground by misrepresentation or fraud, and that too in public employment. Awarding gratuity in respect of employment - service which is secured by misrepresentation or fraud amounts to granting reward for such conduct. 24. It is pertinent that for the period during which she continued in service initially on account of compassionate ground and thereafter, under protection of the Court's order, the claimant received salary and other perquisites payable to the employees of the corporation and then she raised claim for gratuity. The claimant was not satisfied with the salary which was paid during her employment which she secured with misrepresentation but she also wanted benefit of gratuity and for that purpose, she instituted the proceedings before the Controlling Authority. 25. The controlling authority did not consider it appropriate to take into account the undisputed fact that she had secured appointment in a local authority i.e. a post which would come within purview of public appointment, by misrepresentation and/or by committing fraud. The controlling authority also did not consider it appropriate to reject the claim by a person who had secured appointment by unjust means and the controlling authority erred in accepting the claim and it erroneously issued directions to the corporation to pay Rs. 60,382/- towards gratuity. 26. In view of this Court, the claimant, despite being a wife of another employee of the corporation secured appointment without disclosing the said and other relevant facts and by misrepresenting herself as wife of concerned employee (who was dismissed/relieved, on the ground that he was medically unfit) cannot be considered eligible for benefit of gratuity and such claim does not deserve to be granted in favour of present claimant. Unfortunately the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to consider these aspects and passed the orders without having regard to relevant aspects. In light of the peculiar facts of present case, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority does not deserve to be sustained and are required to be quashed. Therefore, following order is passed. 27. In light of the peculiar facts of present case, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority does not deserve to be sustained and are required to be quashed. Therefore, following order is passed. 27. The petition filed by the corporation against the orders dated 22.5.2007 passed by the controlling authority and the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the appellate authority are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no costs.