Back
VISHAL MISHRA
GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH N. MANDVE – Respondent
ORDER : – With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard.
Challenge in this petition has been made to an order dated 10th July, 2019 passed by the Gratuity Appeals Nos. 60/18 and 61/18, whereby, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Central Jabalpur has passed an order to pay gratuity amount alongwith interest to the respondent No. 1. Challenge is being made on limited issue that whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled for grant of interest for the delayed payment of gratuity by the authority or not?
2. It is pointed out that the petitioner are a cooperate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970 having its head office at Manipal and an incorporate office at Bangalore. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 2nd April, 1977 as Probationary Clerk by the Bank and was confirmed on 28-10-1977. While working in the petitioner’s bank at its Gandhi Bagh, Nagpur Branch between 9-11-2010 to 30-9-2011, the respondent by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise by abusing his official position demanded and accepted pecuniary advantage of Rs. 5000/- from one Rakhika, a customer of the Bank on 14th July, 2011. The respondent No. 1 was trapped by ACB, CBI Nagpur on the compla
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Hans Raj Mutreja For the Respondent : Tej Kumar Malik
The main legal point established is that an employee is entitled to interest on withheld gratuity as per Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the provisions of the 1972 Act overrid....
Once full amount of gratuity becomes payable to the employee due to the consequences of law, then the right to get statutory interest in terms of Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, cannot ....
The court held that the employer was justified in withholding the gratuity pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings as permitted in Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
Gratuity payment can be withheld during the pendency of departmental or judicial proceedings as per Rule 64(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Employer cannot withhold gratuity for unauthorized retention of quarters post-retirement; statutory interest of 10% applies for delayed payment.
Proper notice, quantification, and opportunity to be heard are mandatory for forfeiting gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; failure to comply invalidates the forfeiture.
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
