HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice D.NAGARJUN
E.Kandeeban – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner – Respondent
Gratuity - Employment Dispute - Payment of Gratuity Act - Sections 4(6), 13, 14 - The court emphasized that gratuity cannot be withheld or adjusted against loans unless certain conditions are met, affirming the overriding effect of the Act and ensuring employees receive their entitled benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired bank employee, claimed unpaid gratuity that was improperly credited to a loan account instead of his savings account. The case arose after the appellate authority reversed the controlling authority's decision requiring the bank to pay the gratuity with interest.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate authority failed to provide a reasoned order when reversing the decision to grant gratuity. The court found that gratuity cannot be withheld or adjusted against loans without proper consent or grounds, as established by the Gratuity Act.
Issues: Whether the bank's action of crediting the gratuity to the loan account instead of directly paying it to the petitioner contravened the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that gratuity is protected from attachment or adjustment against debts unless explicitly authorized by the employee, aligning with the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed; the impugned order set aside, directing the bank to pay the gratuity.
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the first respondent and quash the order dated 23/7/2019 passed in G.A.No.2 of 2019 as illegal and consequently, direct the third respondent to pay the gratuity to the petitioner in terms of the order of the second respondent dated 3/12/2018 in G.A.No.22 of 2018.
2. The facts in brief as per the affidavit are as under:-
The petitioner joined the third respondent Bank on 9/11/1984 and retired from service on 31/5/2018, after rendering 33 years and 6 months of service. However, third respondent Bank did not pay the gratuity. On 1/6/2018, the petitioner came to know that third respondent Bank has credited gratuity in loan account instead of the petitioner's Pension SB Account maintained in Avadi Branch of third respondent Bank. When the petitioner went to withdraw the amount, there was zero balance in the account. On enquiry, he came to know that the respondent Bank has credited Rs.15,26,470/- towards gratuity amount in his account and immediately, it was adjusted Rs.15,26,417/- towards loan dues at 7 p.m., on 1/6/2018. The petitioner was not informed about this and mobile banking message was blocked to keep the petitioner under darkness. The third respondent Bank without any authority of the petitioner has borrowed his account and took away money.
3. The petitioner has filed G.A.Case No.22 of 2018 before the Controlling Authority, second respondent claiming gratuity from third respondent, wherein, the second respondent has held that as per Section
13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, no gratuity payable to an employee, is liable to be attached in execution of decree or order of any civil/revenue/criminal Court. The provisions of Gratuity Act will have over riding effect on any other enactment/Rules in terms of Section 14 of the said Act. Gratuity payable to an employee cannot be withheld/ adjusted/forfeited except the circumstances stated under 4 6 (b) of the Act. The second respondent has held that third respondent is liable to pay gratuity and since there is a delay, third respondent Bank was directed to pay with interest at the rate of 10% p.a.
4. Third respondent Bank preferred Payment of Gratuity Appeal No.6 of 2018 before the first respondent against the order of the second respondent. The said appeal was allowed on 23/7/2019, by way of cryptic order, without appreciating the facts. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
5. The Chief Manager (HR) of Union Bank of India/third respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.43,67,130.55 to be paid by the petitioner to the third respondent Bank under various heads like Over Draft, Educational loan, flood loan, mortgage loan, conveyance loan etc., and that the petitioner, as on the date of retirement was entitled for Rs.15,26,470/- towards gratuity; Rs.10,35,936/- towards commutation of pension and Rs.85,790/- towards PL encashment.
6. Rs.27.07 lakhs to be paid to the petitioner by the third respondent Bank was credited in the Bank account of the petitioner on 1/6/2018, which was declared as Non-Performing Asset for a totalling amount of Rs.43,67,130.55. Accordingly, Rs.27.07 lakhs money to be paid to the petitioner was adjusted towards Over Draft, Conveyance loan, mortgage loan, educational loan and flood loan. The gratuity payable to the petitioner was credited to his Bank account by the third respondent as an employer, thereby, third respondent has discharged legitimate duty as an employer. The petitioner has also availed loan of Rs.2,64,000/- from Union Bank of India, Officers Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Chennai.
7. It is mentioned further in the counter affidavit that while availing the loans, the petitioner had authorised the third respondent Bank, to adjust/recover monies that are credited to the Bank account towards accounts he o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.