Seeking quashing of order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and seeking quashing of order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), DhanbadcumAppellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitionerM/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited has preferred the present writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, a case vide RC 13(A)/06/00920006 A 0013 was registered by CBI against the respondent-employee and sanction for prosecution was granted on 08.08.2007 by the Chairman, Coal India Limited. On account of his involvement in the criminal case, the respondent was suspended vide order dated 12.12.2006. A departmental proceeding under Rule 29 of the Coal India Executives' Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 was initiated vide order dated 28.09.2010 against the respondent-employee. While the criminal case as well as the departmental proceeding continued, the respondent who was appointed as an Executive in BCCL, attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2010. The petitioner M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited however, deposited the gratuity amount of Rs.10 Lacs vide Cheque dated 09.02.2011 with the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with a request not to disburse the amount till finalisation of the proceeding, which was initiated against the respondent-employee while he was in service. The respondent-employee submitted an application on 24.05.2011 in Form N for release of gratuity amount, before the Controlling Authority, which was registered as P.G. Case No. 36(46)/2011E6. The petitioner submitted written statement on 19.07.2011 taking a plea that in view of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, the amount of gratuity be withheld till the disposal of the criminal/departmental proceeding. The respondent examined himself and admitted the pendency of the criminal case and the departmental proceeding. However, the controlling authority vide order dated 21.12.2011 held that in view of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the amount of Gratuity cannot be withheld merely on account of pendency of the criminal case and directed the respondent-employee to apply in the prescribed proforma for payment of the gratuity amount. An appeal being P.G. Appeal No.21/2012 was preferred by the respondent-employee for payment of interest on the gratuity amount from 01.01.2011. The petitioner M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited also preferred an appeal being, P.G. Appeal No. 20/2012. Both the appeals were heard together and vide order dated 19.10.2012, both the appeals have been dismissed by Appellate Authority.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on judgment in “State Bank of India Vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr.”, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 249 and in Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindranath Choubey (Civil Appeal No.9693 of 2013) submits that in an identical case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order withholding gratuity during pendency of the departmental proceeding and in view of the decision of a larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal Bhaskar's case, the “Rabindranath Choubey” case has been referred to a larger Bench and thus, judgment in Ram Lal Bhaskar's case holds the field today. It is further submitted that in view of the deeming provision under Rule 34.2, the departmental proceeding initiated against the respondent-employee has continued and since the disciplinary authority has power under Rule 34.3 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 to withhold payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the Controlling Authority has erroneously ordered payment of gratuity amount and the said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, ignoring the settled law in this behalf.

5. I ha