HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.9440 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for UBI , appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:

“…..to issue a Wirt or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned Appellate Order G.A.36/7/2020, dated 26-10-21 passed by 1^st Respondent declare the same as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently quash the same as such and consequently quash the PG Application No.10/2015 dated 20-9-19 passed by the 2^nd Respondent as illegal and contrary to law and pass.....”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, is as follows:

The 3^rd Respondent was appointed in Andhra Bank in

1980 and was later promoted as Branch Manager. While working at the Mangapet Branch, the 3^rd Respondent was found indulging in serious misconduct of fraudulently transferring funds from customer accounts. As a result, the respondent No.3 was suspended on 03.04.2012, and the charges against the respondent No.3 were held proved, consequently, respondent No.3 was dismissed from service on 09.03.2013, and the dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities.

Following this, the bank issued a notice dated

02.07.2013 to respondent No.3 to forfeit his gratuity under Section 4(6)(b)(i)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for acts involving moral turpitude and disorderly conduct. After considering respondent No.3 reply, a final order of forfeiture was passed on 24.09.2013.

Despite this, the 3^rd Respondent approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mancherial, after more than two years, seeking gratuity. On 20.09.2019, the Controlling Authority directed the bank to pay Rs. 10 lakhs towards gratuity with 10% interest, totaling Rs. 16,49,999/-

The petitioner bank filed appeal, but the Appellate Authority, without considering its objections, dismissed the appeal on 26.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner bank has filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 of the respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and I / C Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad vide G.A.No.36/ 7/ 2020 is extracted here under:

“The Appellate Authority has relied upon the following the case laws:-

1. In the absence of specific order against an employee, his gratuity cannot be forfeited.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Elirina Samuel Bhai Chistian (2002) 1 LLJ 342: 2002 LLR 269 (GUJ HC)

Radhesham Khichrdia Vs Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd 2002 LLR 610 (MP HC)

2. Withholding of gratuity of an employee compulsorily retired from service will not be justified.

Brudaben Sahee Vs O S R T Corporation Ltd (1993) 1 LLN 129: (1992) 2 LLR 256 (1993) III LLJ (SUPP) 208;

1992 LLR 696 (ORI HC)

3. Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if disciplinary proceeding is pending against him.

Gopala Krishna Vs Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd

1996 LLR 306 (KAR HC)

4. A notice must be issued to the employee before forfeiting his gratuity.

J P Micheal D Souza Vs Appellate Authority under PG Act Bengaluru 2002 LLr 7 (KAR HC)

5. Mere pending of criminal case shall not disentitle an employee from receiving gratuity.

Rajendra Kumar Nangia Vs Rastriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd (2002) 1 LLJ 648: 2002 LLR 266 (BAN HC)

Having gone through the entire submissions made by both the parties, and also the order of the Controlling Authority the following order is passed:-

The order of the Controlling Authority & Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Mancherial is upheld.

The respondent is entitled for payment of gratuity and intere