##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6857

WP No. 9981 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 9981 OF 2021 (L-PG)

BETWEEN:

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

VIJAYA BANK,

HEAD OFFICE NO.41/2,

M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

PRESENTLY MERGED WITH

M/S. BANK OF BARODA

A BOADY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED

UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES

(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF

UNDERTAKING)ACT 1970,

HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT

BARODA BHAVAN, R C DUTT ROAD,

ALAKAPURI, BARODA-390007, GUJARAT,

REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER

ZONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE.

Digi tally

…PETITIONER

signed by

(BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P,ADVOCATE)

PRAMILA G V

Location:

AND:

HIGH COURT

OF SRI B CHANDRAHASA RAI,

KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

S/O LATE MANHANA RAI,

NO.176/9/2, 2^ND CROSS,

WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560027.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI RANJAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2019 PASSED BY THE

APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6857

WP No. 9981 of 2021

HC-KAR

1972 AND DY.CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL),

BANGALORE, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -K.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by

the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972 (for short 'Act, 1972') which in turn has set aside the

order passed by the Controlling Authority and directed the

petitioner to pay gratuity to the respondent.

3. Certain facts are admitted.

On 06.06.2006, the petitioner-Bank issued a charge

sheet alleging misconduct against the respondent-employee.

On 31.08.2006, the respondent- employee attained age of

superannuation. The disciplinary proceeding continued

against the respondent-employee even after his

superannuation and in terms of order dated 19.12.2007, the

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6857

WP No. 9981 of 2021

HC-KAR

penalty of dismissal was imposed on the respondent-

employee. The said order is not called in question by the

respondent-employee.

4. On 18.08.2008, the petitioner issued a show-

cause notice to the respondent as to why the gratuity

payable to respondent should not be forfeited. This

apparently is pursuant to the finding of guilty in the domestic

inquiry. On 08.09.2008, the respondent submitted his reply.

5. Overruling the objections of respondent, on

10.10.2008, the gratuity payable to respondent-employee is

forfeited.

6. Nine years later i.e., 21.09.2017, respondent filed

an application in Form No.1 to claim gratuity. Later, on

30.10.2017, respondent filed Form No.N before the

Controlling Authority under the Act, 1972. The petitioner was

notified about the application. The petitioner filed objection

to the said application.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6857

WP No. 9981 of 2021

HC-KAR

7. The Controlling Authority rejected the Form No.N/

application filed by the respondent on the premise that the

application is filed 9 years after the forfeiture and sufficient

grounds are not made out to allow the application after 9

years.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed

an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

9. The Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal

and directed the petitioner to pay the gratuity. The Appellate

Authority concluded that the petitioner-employer could not

have imposed the penalty of termination after the age of

superannuation. The Appellate Authority held that gratuity

cannot be forfeited after the age of superannuation and

directed the payment.

10. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the

petitioner-employer is before this Court.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

employer would submit that the Appellate Authority has

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6857

WP No. 9981 of 2021

HC-KAR

condoned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document