2002 Supreme(Guj) 608

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :AKSHAY H.MEHTA
JAANSUKHLAAL CHHAAGANLAL NAAGORI - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL MANAGER,union BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
S.C.A. 8091 of 1988
Decided On : 08/19/2002

Headnote:

Clause 3 - Letters Patent Appeal - Petitioner in this petition is that the allegation against him was that under a scheme which was part of 20-point economic programme sponsored by late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, a scheme was formed in which loans of small amounts were being disbursed to a particular class of persons having small scale industries. This scheme was being implemented through the respondent - bank. Against the petitioner, allegation was levelled that he had deliberately advanced loans to such persons from whom the recovery of the loan amount was almost impossible. It was also alleged that certain loan amounts which he was required to recover, were not recovered by the petitioner and ultimately these reckless acts of the petitioner resulted into substantial monetary loss to the Bank. The petitioners say is that though challenge to the aforesaid allegations now no more exits, the action of the respondent - Bank withholding the Gratuity and Provident Funds amount of the petitioner was bad in law inasmuch as the respondent - Bank had not complied with the provisions of Provident Fund Rules as well as Rules framed by the Bank for the purpose of Payment of Gratuity. He has placed reliance on the Provident Fund Rules No. 17 and 18 and has averred that unless and until the petitioner is made aware of the exact amount of loss caused to the Bank on account of misconduct, such action could not be resorted to by the respondent - Bank. So far his Contribution to the Provident Fund is concerned the same has been paid. However, the respondent - Bank seeking the shelter under the aforesaid rules has not paid the Banks Contribution towards the P. F. amount for the petitioner on the ground that the financial loss on account of the misconduct of the petitioner was greater than the amount to be paid to the petitioner by way of Employers Contribution towards P. F petitioner has submitted that the decision of the respondent - Bank not to release the P. F. amount as well as of Gratuity in favour of the petitioner is absolutely unjust and arbitrary. He has further submitted that the respondent - Bank could not have resorted to such action without following due procedure as laid down in the Union Bank Employees Provident Fund Rules). He has furnished a compilation of the P. F. rules and has drawn my pointed attention to Rules no. 17 and 18 of the P. F. Rules. A copy of which is supplied to me. Rules nos. 17 and 18 read as under :-"rule no. 17 : Any contributor who is dismissed for insubordination, misconduct, fraud or any other cause of like nature or retires from the Bank in consequence thereof shall only be entitled to repayment of the amount of his own contribution with the interest accrued thereon at the rate and in the manner aforesaid. Trustees shall be the sole Judges of the sufficiency of the cause of the dismissal or retirement of any contribution in any of the foregoing cases. "2 0 -Held it is an admitted fact that before taking such decision at no point of time the petitioner was given any opportunity to explain to the Bank that the proposed action of forfeiture of the retiral benefits of the petitioner was not called for. This aspect has also been taken care of by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision. Thus it also violates principle of natural justice was ultimately communicated at a very late stage almost after 7 long years which again was without following the due procedure. petitioner cannot be deprived of this benefit any longer, as he has been wrongly denied these benefits almost for 14 years by now. petition is required to be allowed. attention to the prayer clause and has requested that the Bank may be directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of the P. F. as well as the gratuity amount. Considering the circumstances of record and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case in A. I. R. 2001 S. C. 2433, in my opinion it would be in the fitness of things that on the amount of arrears of P. F. as well as of gratuity the respondent - Bank is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent Bank is, therefore, directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of Banks contribution of P. F. concerning petitioner together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of such amount became payable till realisation. The respondent - Bank is also directed to pay the amount of gratuity admissible under the law to the petitioner together with 12% interest from the date it became payable to the petitioner till realisation. The aforesaid exercise to be carried out. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs -Petiton is Allowed.