IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Amratbhai Shamalbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.15055 of 2019 with R/Special Civil Application No.3569 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4, 4(1), 4(6), 4(6)(a) - Payment of gratuity - Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, on his superannuation, or retirement or resignation, or his death or disablement due to accident or disease - Special Civil Application has been filed by Bank of Baroda, employer challenging orders of Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and order of appellate authority confirming order of Controlling Authority by which Controlling Authority directed petitioner - Bank to pay gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith simple interest at 10% p.a. from date of entitlement of gratuity to actual date of payment to respondent employee - Whether it was permissible for employers under Rules concerned to withhold gratuity after superannuation on grounds of pendency of disciplinary proceedings - Whether in a departmental inquiry initiated against an employee, can employer impose an order of punishment of dismissal after employee attained age of superannuation opined that it was not open for Bank to do so - Regulations of Bank of Baroda Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 have been placed on record which indicate that it is open for Bank under Regulation 48 to recover pecuniary loss to Bank - Perusal of charges and inquiry officer's report and findings would indicate that employee was responsible inasmuch as Bank has suffered a loss and accounts had become NPA to extent of Rs.19.84 crores - view of decision of Supreme Court in case of (Supra) and decision in case of (Supra) rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court which considered decision of (Supra) and jurisdiction of Court in matters of disciplinary proceedings, Court holds as under - In SCA filed by Bank wherein challenge is to orders of appellate authority under payment of Gratuity Act and that of Controlling Authority, orders of Gratuity Authority are quashed and set aside - Action of Bank in withholding gratuity of Rs.12,30,137/- is held to be valid and proper- Interim relief granted by Court which obliged Bank to invest that amount in Fixed Deposit in name of respondent No.1 shall no longer operate in view of petition being allowed. amount shall be appropriated by Bank alongwith interest - SCA stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. SCA No.3569 of 2018 has been filed by Bank of Baroda, the employer challenging the orders of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 3.5.2017 and the order of the appellate authority dated 27.12.2017 confirming the order of the Controlling Authority by which the Controlling Authority directed the petitioner - Bank to pay gratuity of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith simple interest at 10% p.a. from the date of entitlement of gratuity to actual date of payment to the respondent employee.
2. SCA No.15055 of 2019 has been filed by the employee challenging the order of dismissal dated 12.2.2016 by which the employee petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Bank. He has also challenged the communication dated 23.6.2016 by which his application for compassionate allowance was rejected.
3. Since both the petitions, that of the employer Bank and that of the employee who challenged the order of dismissal are to be heard together and the facts are overlapping, they are considered as under:
3.1. The employee Shri Amrathbhai Patel was appointed as a Clerk with the Bank on 1.4.1978. He was thereafter promoted as Senior Manager and reached the age of superannuation on 31.5.2015. Before the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, the Bank issued a letter dated 13.5.2015 informing the employee that they were invoking Regulation 20(3)(iii) of Bank of Baroda officials' Service Regulations, 1979, inasmuch as, since the petitioner employee was reaching superannuation on 31.5.2015, and since disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him by virtue of a charge-sheet dated 27.1.2015, as per Regulation 20(3)(iii) though the employee would retire on 31.5.2015, the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if the employee was in service until the proceedings are concluded and a final order is passed in respect thereof. The communication dated 13.5.2015 further stated that the employee shall not be entitled to the payment of retirement benefits except his own contribution to the provident fund till the conclusion of the proceedings and the final decision being communicated to him. The employee therefore retired on superannuation with the inquiry continuing in accordance with Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations.
3.2. On 12.2.2016, the departmental inquiry was concluded based on the charge-sheet dated 7.1.2015 and on 12.2.2016 a penalty of dismissal was imposed on the employee. The order of 12.2.2016 indicated that the employee was dismissed from the Bank services which shall ordinary be a disqualification for future employment.
The period of suspension shall also be treated as period not spent on duty. Since the employee was dismissed from service, the provisional pension that was being paid to him had been stopped in view of the order of dismissal. On 23.6.2016, the employee requested for compassionate allowance under Regulation 31 of the Bank of Baroda Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995. That request for compassionate allowance was rejected on 23.2.2016 by the Bank. The employee approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act by filing an appropriate form under the Payment of Gratuity Rules on 1.8.2016. In the application so filed and the Annextures thereto it was stated that the employee had retired on superannuation on 31.5.2015. The Bank filed its reply before the Controlling Authority on 17.10.2016 and 15.2.2017. The Controlling Authority by an order of 3.5.2017 held that the employee was entitled to being paid the amount of gratuity holding that provisions of the Gratuity Act particularly Section 4(6)(a) thereof entitled the employer to forbid gratuity in case the employee was terminated from the services. The Controlling Authority held that the employee had superannuated from the services and therefore it was not possible for the employer Bank to invoke Section 4(6) of the Act and since the employee was allowed to retire on superannuation, he was entitled to the pay
Air India Corporation Bombay v. V.A. Ravellow
B.T. Krishnamurthy v. Sri Basaveswara Education Society (2013) 4 SCC 490
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors.
Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Ors.
Disciplinary Authority, Regional Manager and others v. Nikunj Bihari Patnaik
Distt. Registrar, Palghat and Ors. v. M.B. Koyakutty and Ors.
Francis Kalein & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen
Hirakud Dam v. State of Orissa & Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 583
Jagdish Mitter v.Union of India AIR 1964 SC 449
Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corpn. (2007) 10 SCC 71
Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways in & Ors.
Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors. v. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd.
M. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kerala & Ors.
P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India
P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India & Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 338
Paramjit Singh v. Director of Schools (Public in structions) (2010) 14 SCC 416
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank
Regional Manager, Rajasthan SRTC v. Sohan Lal
Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India
Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India) (1955) 1 SCR 26
State Bank of India v. The Workmen of State Bank of India & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 13
State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. Lavu Narendranath and Ors. etc.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors.
State of U.P. v. Ram Vinai Sinha (2010) 15 SCC 305
Syndicate Bank and others v. Venktesh Gururao Khurati
The Binny Ltd. v. Their Workmen
the State of Punjab v. Rajesh Kumar (2006) 12 SCC 418
UCO Bank & Ors. v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade (2018) 14 SCC 98
UCO Bank & Ors. v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla
Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.