Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-Bank challenging the confirming Judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-Cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, shortly hereinafter, „the Appellate Authority‟, in P.G. Appeal Case No.08 of 2021, so also the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-Cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack shortly hereinafter, „the Controlling Authority‟, in P.G. Case No.01 of 2019.

2. The brief facts of the case, as detailed in the Writ Petition, is that the Petitioner-Bank i.e. the Cuttack Central Co- operative Bank, is a Society registered under the Odisha Co- operative Societies Act, 1962, shortly hereinafter, „OCS Act, 1962‟. The Opposite Party No.4, who was working as a Deputy Manager in the Petitioner-Bank, superannuated from her service w.e.f. 31.07.2010. After her retirement, she submitted a representation before the Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Odisha for release of the retiral benefits, which was forwarded by the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies to the Petitioner- Bank vide letter dated 17.04.2012 directing to take prompt action towards payment of her retiral benefits.

3. After receipt of the said letter, the Petitioner Bank, after thorough scrutiny on the liabilities and proceeding lying against the Opposite Party No.4, came to a conclusion that Rs.7,44,084/- is lying against her towards recovery. Out of which Rs.3,91,495/- towards loan and guarantee liability, Rs.3,52,589/- towards interest. After adjustment of retiral benefits, Rs.1,68,874/- is pending against the Opposite Party No.4 towards recovery. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Petitioner-Bank issued demand notice requesting the Opposite Party No.4 for payment of the said outstanding amount. Despite receiving notice, the Opposite Party No.4 remained silent over the matter for a long period and also did not deposit the recoverable amount wilfully causing a huge financial loss to the Petitioner-Bank.

4. While the matter stood thus, after nine years of her superannuation, the Opposite Party No.4 approached the Controlling Authority (O.P.2) claiming Rs.4,28,765/- (incorrectly typed as Rs.78,765/-) towards gratuity along with interest. Despite issuance of notice, as the Petitioner-Bank could not appear before the Controlling Authority, due to some unavoidable circumstances, an ex-parte judgment was passed on 05.11.2019 directing the Petitioner-Bank to deposit Rs.8,25,849/- within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the Judgment, which came to the knowledge of the Petitioner-Bank after the initiation of the certificate proceeding against it before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack, Sadar. However, the period of limitation to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority had elapsed by then. Thus, the Petitioner- Bank challenged the ex-parte judgment so also certificate proceeding before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7285 of 2021. The said Writ Petition stood disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2021 directing the Petitioner-Bank to file an Appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay within 10 days. Accordingly, the Petitioner-Bank preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority (O.P.1), which was registered as P.G. Appeal Case No.08 of 2021. The Opposite Party No.1, after hearing, confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority vide Judgment and order dated 28.03.2022