IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 21.04.2026 State Bank of India …Petitioner Versus Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Paul, Advocate for respondent No.3.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure P-15), passed by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh (respondent No.2), whereby, the order passed by the petitioner/Bank, forfeiting the gratuity payable to respondent No.3, was set aside, and order dated 19.07.2018 (Annexure P-19), wherethrough, the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner/Bank, was also dismissed by learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh (respondent No.1).

2. While placing reliance upon the Regulation 12(2) of the Gratuity Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case of termination of service in any other way except by punishment, that too after completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner/Bank is entitled to retain the gratuity amount. The second argument raised before this Court is that in case of loss suffered by the employer, the same can be recovered by virtue of the provisions of the Gratuity Act, itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order passed by disciplinary authority (Annexure P-7), wherethrough, the respondent No.3, was compulsorily retired on account of careless, negligent and dubious acts, which resulted in certain persons succeeding to defraud the Bank, in a number of cases, and on account of such lapse, an estimated loss to the Bank was reported to the tune of Rs.69.73 lacs plus interest. He further submits that the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Ganesh Ganj Branch, Lucknow, has quantified the loss, and reported the same to the Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Patiala, on 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-10), according to which, the Bank has suffered a loss of about Rs.68,27,882.53/-.

4. He next placed heavy reliance upon the order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure P-11), passed by learned Deputy General Manager (Accounts), State Bank of Patiala, Pension, PF and Gratuity Department, Head Office, Patiala, to submit that on account of loss suffered, and as quantified (supra), the recovery was ordered to be effected. All these aspects have not been examined in its right perspective, and therefore, the order(s) impugned requires interference of this Court.

5. Finally, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court, in LPA No.566 of 2012, decided on 07.03.2013, titled ‘UCO Bank and others vs. Anju Mathur’ Law Finder Doc ID # 424169, to submit that in case the authorities concerned, comes to a conclusion that no such loss has been quantified, the authorities instead of directing to pay the gratuity, should have remitted back the lis to the Bank, in case, there is absence of order of recovery by the competent authorities concerned, to serve the show cause notice, and thereupon, to pass an order of recovery.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has put a fierce defense and submits that till date, no actual loss has been quantified by any competent authority. The respondent No.3, was compulsorily retired on 28.01.2012, and till date, he has not been paid his statutory dues of gratuity by the petitioner/Bank. He further submits that even no evidence whatsoever, was led before the authorities concerned, to establish the actual loss. Even, the instant writ petition also transpires nothing with regard to actual loss suffered by the petitioner/Bank, rather, the entire case revolves around an estimated cost