ORDER

1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 26.7.2021 passed by appellate authority i.e. respondent No.2 and order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the Controlling Authority i.e. respondent No. 3 under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 was serving as Assistant General Manager-cum-Regional Head of Bank’s Regional Office, Indore. He committed serious misconduct resulting into financial losses to the bank of Rs. 717.52 lacs. He was served with charge -sheet and disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him and major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him vide order dated 16.10.2003. Thereafter, gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, which is payable to respondent No. 1, was forfeited vide order dated 29.10.2007. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 on 27.3.2018. There is delay of 11 years in filing application under section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. No application for condonation of delay was filed. Controlling Authority without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the bank and without consideration of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Bank’s Gratuity Funds Rules, on hypothetical figures directed the bank to pay forfeit gratuity amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and also Rs. 4,22,220/- which was 10% interest for entire period.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1 had never challenged the penalty order nor order of forfeiture of gratuity amount before higher forum. Controlling Authority as well as appellate authority committed an error of law in passing impugned orders dated 13.10.2020 and 26.7.2021. In aforesaid circumstances, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners made a prayer for quashing of said orders being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, any person aggrieved by order under sub-section (4) ought to have filed an application before Controlling Authority within a period of 90 days as per rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 and if application is filed beyond said period, then it is to be accompanied by application for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that as per Clause 3 of Schedule A of Bank’s Gratuity Fund Rules, 1975, disciplinary/competent authority is empowered to forfeit the gratuity to the extent of damages or losses caused to the bank. Therefore, order is within jurisdiction of competent authority. Further, reliance is place on Regulation 46 and it was argued that respondent No.1 is not entitled to gratuity as per Regulation 46. In view of aforesaid submission, prayer is made for allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned orders.

4. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that Regulation and Rules of the bank, which are contrary to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, cannot be relied for setting aside the order of payment of gratuity. He placed reliance on section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which is quoted as under :

“14. Act to override other enactments, etc. The provisions of this Act or any rule made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.”

5. It is submitted that Payment of gratuity are mandatory in nature have overriding effect over rules and regulations of bank, which are contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1972. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further argued that as per section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity of an employee can be forfeited. Provisions of section 4(6) is quoted as under :

“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sect