Exhaustion of statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(vii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is necessary before seeking judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. N. Parwat, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. By invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.06.2020 as contained in Annexure-4, passed by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) -cum- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the ‘Act of 1972’) by which the respondent no.3 has been found entitled to get his gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/-only without any amount of interest and further direction has been issued to the petitioner Bank to pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner gave a brief facts of the case stating that the private respondent no.3 had joined the service of the erstwhile Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 09.06.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor and later on designated as Officer Junior Management (Grade-I). He further submits that while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, in Kashichak Branch of the Bank, he was apprehended in connection with a trap case and accordingly a Vigilance P. S. Case no. 100 of 2009, under Section 7/13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was instituted against him. He also submits that on account of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner was put to a departmental proceeding, which culminated into the dismissal with further direction that the same shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment. He next submits that the respondent no.3 had assailed the order of punishment in appeal, however, the same also stood dismissed. In the meantime, the private respondent had filed an application under the Act of 1972 for payment of his gratuity amount before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)-cum-Controlling Authority on account of his alleged superannuation from the services of Bank w.e.f. 31.12.2014 resulting into registration of Case No. 48/1(33)/2018/ALC-PT. The petitioner appeared and filed its reply as well as supplementary reply denying all the allegation and also raised objections, inter alia, the claim being not maintainable and time barred. The Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)-cum-Controlling Authority after hearing the parties, allowed the said application vide order dated 02.06.2020 which is impugned herein.

4. Learned senior counsel further drawn the attention of this Court to the Service Regulations for Regional Rural Banks as framed by the Central Government in exercise of power vested in it under Section 17(1) second proviso of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) service Regulation, 2010 and submits that these regulations were applicable and binding on all the Officers and Employees of the Bank and, in fact, in terms of Section 32 of the said Regional Rural Banks, Act, 1976, the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 has overriding effect over the provisions of other laws. He next submits that the Regulation 3 of Chapter II of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 deals with the classification of “Officers” and “Employees” and the word employee does not cover Officers of the Bank. It is evident from the contents of proviso of Regulation 72(2) above that it keeps rider on the forfeiture of Gratuity of employee only in the circumstances mentioned therein and not on the forfeiture of Gratuity of the Officers. He also relied upon one of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Rajan Sandhi Vs. Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 4095 of 2006. Further reliance has also been made on the judgment rendered