Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
State Bank of Paitala – Appellant
Versus
S.K. Sharma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for gratuity under regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conditions under which gratuity may be forfeited. (Para 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. interpretation of the regulation concerning gratuity. (Para 5 , 6 , 10) |
| 4. conclusions drawn from lack of financial loss. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judgment affirms entitlement to gratuity. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 02.02.1993, vide which the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and a declaration was granted to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to his terminal benefits such as proportionate gratuity under the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1979 Regulations), (i.e. after deducting the loss accrued to the Bank due to the plaintiff, if any) alongwith 12% interest per annum from the date of the suit till payment. Challenge is also to the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by the present appellant/defendant has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, as per proviso (e) of the Regulation 12(2) of the State Bank of Pa
Gratuity cannot be withheld in cases of termination by punishment without evidence of financial loss to the employer.
(1) Forfeiture of gratuity may be directed to the extent of damage or loss so caused or destruction of property belonging to employer.(2) Provisions of Gratuity Act have superiority over all other pr....
Gratuity forfeiture requires a conviction for moral turpitude; without such conviction, an employee remains entitled to gratuity despite termination for misconduct.
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to gratuity under a specific regulation and a general act was determined based on the fulfillment of conditions of eligibility....
Employees of bank were found to be eligible for gratuity as per 1972 Act and, hence, they were found to be entitled to benefit of Regulation 72(1) of 2010 Regulation.
In employment governed by statutory banking regulations, an employer can withhold gratuity and additional retiral benefits of an employee against whom a judicial proceeding is pending, even if no gro....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
