( 1 ) THE only question which arises in this appeal by the Central Bank of India which has been directed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 1973 to pay to its ex-employee respondent plaintiff G. M. Jani a sum of Rs. 8 800 in connection with his Provident Fund dues and Rs. 14 0 in connection with his claim for gratuity is as to whether the learned trial Judge was in error in negativing the plea of the appellant Bank that it was entitled to withhold the aforesaid amounts. The suit giving rise to the appeal was instituted by the plaintiff an ex-officer of the Bank seeking a declaration that an order of dismissal from service passed by the Bank on Sept. 13 1969 was illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff also prayed for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 8 800 which was at his credit in his Provident Fund Account and a sum of Rs. 14 0 in connection with gratuity. The defendant Bank in its written statement contended the plaintiff was not entitled to the payment of the Provident Fund amount and the gratuity amount without disclosing the legal basis for withholding the said amount. The trial Court on an appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish his case in so far as the impugned order of dismissal dated 13/09/1969 was concerned. The suit of the plaintiff in so far as the relief for declaration in this behalf was concerned was dismissed. The trial Court however came to the conclusion that the defendant Bank was not justified in withholding the amount of Provident Fund and gratuity in view of the fact that the Bank had failed to make out the case that it was entitled to withhold these amounts as per the relevant rules. Thereupon the unsuccessful Bank has approached this Court by way of the present appeal and has contended that the trial Court ought to have upheld the plea that the Bank was entitled to withhold these at mounts. In so far as the plaintiff has failed in his challenge to the impugned order of dismissal dated 13/09/1969 it has been accepted by the plaintiff in the sense that it has not been questioned by way of a cross appeal or cross objections. We are therefore not concerned with that part of the case and need not invest public time in adverting to the facts and circumstances pertaining to the order of dismissal or the grounds on which it was challenged.

( 2 ) AS mentioned earlier the defendant Bank did not make explicit its stand in regard to the alleged right to withhold payment of Provident Fund and gratuity as claimed by the plaintiff in the written statement. All the same it appears that when the matter came up for arguments reliance we placed on rules 17 and 18 of the Provident Fund Rules of the Bank and on a Circular being Circular No. 6 of 1968 regarding payment of gratuity to office staff. The Bank did not place on record the full text of the rules or the Circular. The Bank placed on record at Ex. 73 an extract from the Rules which was certified to be a true copy by an officer of the Bank. So also the Bank also placed on record an extract of the official Circular No. 6/68 at Ex. 74. These extracts typed on the letter head of the defendant Bank have been received in evidence and marked Exs. 73 and 74 by consent. An argument to the following effect was advanced on the basis of Exs. 73 and 74 before the trial Court. The Bank was entitled to withhold from thee Provident Fund Account of the plaintiff amount equivalent to the contributions made by the Bank to the said Account in view of rules 17 and 18 contained in Ex. 73. It was also argued that the Bank was entitled to withhold the payment of gratuity in view of Ex. 74. no order to understand the argument these extracts require to be reproduced :extract From Provident Fund Rules of The Bank Under Which A Member the 1s Dismissed For misconduct is Not Entitled To Claim the Banks Contribution To His P