Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Pat) 364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ROHIT DOSHIT AND JYOTI SARAN, JJ.
1. The Chairman & M.D., UCO Bank Head Office at 10, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-1
2. The General Manager-Personnel, Administration, U Co Bank, Personal Administration Department null Salt Lake, Kolkata.
3. The Chief Officer (Pension) UCO Bank, Head Office-2, 3-4 DD Block Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064
4. The Assistant General Manager UCO Bank, Head Office-2, 3-4, DD Block, Sector-1, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064.
5. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Mauryalok Complex, 4th Floor, Patna.,
6. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Ganga Gopal Market Complex Nagar Palika Chowk, Chapra
All the aforesaid Officers of the UCO Bank in their official capacity are being represented through Panna Lal Mitra, S6 late Radhapada Mitra, Resident of Flat No. 302, Jai Kunj Apartment, Kidwaipuri, Patna-1 as the constituted Attorney of the Bank -Respondents - Appellants.
Versus
Shambhu Sharan Singh, S6 late Jagdish Narain Singh, resident of Mo:-V.I.P. Lane, Bhagwan Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran - Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.252 of 2011 IN CWJC No. 3503 of 2010 With I.A.No.1332 of 2011
Decided on: 11.03.2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate.

Violation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by withholding gratuity from a retired employee entitled to receive it.

Headnote:
Gratuity - Employee's Right to Gratuity - Violation of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
Fact of the Case:

The respondent-writ petitioner, an employee of the appellant-UCO Bank, retired and the Bank withheld his gratuity due to a pending criminal prosecution against him.
Finding of the Court:

The learned Single Judge found that the Bank's action in withholding the gratuity was in violation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as the employee's service was not terminated on disciplinary grounds and he was entitled to receive the gratuity upon retirement.
Issues: Violation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 by the Bank in withholding the gratuity of the retired employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Bank's action was clearly in violation of Section 4 read with Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and therefore set aside the Bank's action, directing the Bank to pay the amount of gratuity to the writ petitioner.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and the Bank was directed to pay the amount of gratuity to the retired employee.

ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 11th October 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3503 of 2010.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner was the employee of the appellant-UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). On reaching the age of superannuation he retired from service in the year 2008. The amount of gratuity payable to him was withheld by the Bank on the ground that a criminal prosecution was pending against him.

3. Challenge to the action of the Bank in the writ petition has succeeded. The learned Single Judge has directed the Bank to pay the amount of gratuity to the writ petitioner.

4. It is not in dispute that the service of the writ petitioner was not terminated on disciplinary grounds. On his retirement he was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The action of the Bank in withholding the amount of gratuity was clearly in violation of Section 4 read with Section 14 of the of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

5. The action has rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine.

6. Interlocutory Application No. 1332 of 2011 stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document