Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
The General Manager (P), Canara Bank - Petitioner
Versus
The Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11410 of 2021 (L-PG)
Decided On : 08-07-2021
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Sections 7, 4 – Schedule Tribe Certificate – Grautity – Respondent No.2 was appointed as a clerk with petitioner-Bank under Schedule Tribe Category. – In that regard, he has furnished caste certificate – Petitioner - Bank initiated enquiry by framing charges and issuing charge sheet on allegations that respondent No.2 is alleged to have submitted Schedule Tribe Certificate which is not a genuine one. – Charge Sheet was not proceeded with in terms of direction issued in W.P. – Thereafter, there were certain internal communications relating to verification of caste certificate whether respondent No.2 belongs to Yadav Community (Golla Community) and such caste would fall under Schedule Tribe category or not – Consequently, caste certificate was cancelled in a proceedings initiated by District Caste and Income verification Committee. – Services of respondent No.2 were terminated while canceling order of appointment of respondent No.2. – Respondent No.2 submitted representation for settlement of terminal benefits and it was rejected – He has rendered 36 years 3 months of service. – He had submitted Form-1 claiming payment of gratuity and it was rejected by petitioner/bank – Respondent No.2 filed an appiication before Controlling Authority in respect of payment of gratuity. – Application of respondent No.2 was rejected vide order – Feeling aggrieved by order of Controlling Authority, respondent No2 preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Appeal filed by respondent No.2 i.e. Appeal No.36(479) 2019-B1 was allowed in favour of respondent No.2 while setting aside order of Controlling Authority dated 20.8.2020 and direction was issued to petitioner-Bank to pay respondent No.2 Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from date it became due till actual date of payment. – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of order of Appellate Authority petitioner - Bank has presented this petition.
Finding of the Court:
Each case depends upon relevant statute which is required to be taken into consideration. – Provisions of payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are crystal clear that an employee should have committed offence involving moral turpitude in course of his employment. – Undisputedly, respondent No.2 has not committed any moral turpitude/offence during course of his employment. – On other hand, before joining petitioner- bank, he has obtained Caste Certificate – Petitioner Bank has not launched criminal proceedings so as to prove offence in Court of law. Termination and cancellation of appointment order of 2nd Respondent is with reference to cancellation of caste certificate. – Sub-section 6(b) (ii) of Section 4 of Act, 1972 ;s not attracted so as to deny gratuity amount to 2nd respondent. – There is no infirmity in order of Appellate Authority – Petitioner - Bank has not made out a case so as to interfere with impugned order passed by Appellate Authority vide Annexure-A.
Result : Writ Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
In the instant petition petitioner has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) (vide Annexure-A) dated 22.12.2020.
2. Respondent No.2-P. Rajendra was appointed as a clerk with the petitioner-Bank on 24.7.1981 under Schedule Tribe Category. In that regard, he had furnished caste certificate dated 19.7.1978. The petitioner -Bank initiated enquiry by framing charges and issuing charge sheet on 12.3.1990 on the allegations that respondent No.2 is alleged to have submitted Schedule Tribe Certificate which is not a genuine one. Charge Sheet was not proceeded with in terms of the direction issued in W.P. No.2387/1990(as stated in the memorandum of Writ Petition). Thereafter, there were certain internal communications relating to verification of caste certificate whether respondent No.2 belongs to Yadav Community (Golla Community) and such caste would fall under the Schedule Tribe category or not? Consequently, caste certificate dated 19.7.1978 was cancelled in a proceedings dated 7.9.2017 initiated by the District Caste and Income verification Committee. On 27.09.2017, services of respondent No.2 were terminated while canceling the order of appointment of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 submitted representation for settlement of terminal benefits and it was rejected on 13.12.2017. He has rendered 36 years 3 months of service. He had submitted Form-1 claiming payment of gratuity and it was rejected by the petitioner/bank on 26.11.1970. Thus respondent No.2 filed an application before the Controlling Authority in respect of payment of gratuity. Application of respondent No.2 was rejected vide order dated 20.08.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Controlling Authority, respondent No2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act, 1972). Appeal filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Appeal No.36(479) 2019-B1 was allowed in favour of respondent No.2 while setting aside the order of the Controlling Authority dated 20.8.2020 and direction was issued to the petitioner-Bank to pay respondent No.2 Rs.10,00,000/-along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date it became due till the actual date of payment. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the order of Appellate Authority dated 22.12.2020, petitioner -Bank has presented this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner -Bank vehemently contended that the petitioner-Bank has cancelled the order of appointment issued to respondent No.2 and terminating his services on 27.09.2017 with reference to the cancellation of caste certificate dated 19.7.1978 issued in favour of respondent No.2 in view of the letter of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee dated 07.09.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the services of respondent No.2 is terminated pursuant to cancellation of caste certificate, respondent No.2 is not entitled to gratuity. It is submitted that petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of gratuity in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1972. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relied on the following three decisions furnished along with the memo.
2. AIR 2017 SC 3271 (Chairman and Managing Director, FCI and Ors. V. Jagdish Balaram Bahira and Ors.
3. High Court of Judicature at Madras judgment dated 04.06.2014-N. Balu Vs. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Mumbai & Others (Writ Petition No.13346 & 19055 of 2013 & M.P. No.1 and 1 of 2013)
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank.
5. Question for consideration in the present petition is ‘Whether respondent No.2 is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or not?’
6. Undisputed facts are that respondent No.2 was appointed with the petitioner -Bank as a clerk under the Schedule Tribe Category r/w the Caste Certificate dated 19.7.1978. Petitioner-Bank ini
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
