CANARA BANK, BENGALURU Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition petitioner has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) (vide Annexure-A) dated 22.12.2020.

(2.) Respondent No.2 - P. Rajendra was appointed as a clerk with the petitioner-Bank on 24.7.1981 under Schedule Tribe Category. In that regard, he had furnished caste certificate dated 19.7.1978. The petitioner - Bank initiated enquiry by framing charges and issuing charge sheet on 12.3.1990 on the allegations that respondent No.2 is alleged to have submitted Schedule Tribe Certificate which is not a genuine one. Charge Sheet was not proceeded with in terms of the direction issued in W.P. No.2387/1990(as stated in the memorandum of Writ Petition). Thereafter, there were certain internal communications relating to verification of caste certificate whether respondent No.2 belongs to Yadav Community (Golla Community) and such caste would fall under the Schedule Tribe category or not? Consequently, caste certificate dated 19.7.1978 was cancelled in a proceedings dated 7.9.2017 initiated by the District Caste and Income verification Committee. On 27.09.2017, services of respondent No.2 were terminated while canceling the order of appointment of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.2 submitted representation for settlement of terminal benefits and it was rejected on 13.12.2017. He has rendered 36 years 3 months of service. He had submitted Form-1 claiming payment of gratuity and it was rejected by the petitioner/bank on 26.11.1970. Thus respondent No.2 filed an application before the Controlling Authority in respect of payment of gratuity. Application of respondent No.2 was rejected vide order dated 20.08.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Controlling Authority, respondent No2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the Act, 1972). Appeal filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Appeal No.36(479) 2019-B1 was allowed in favour of respondent No.2 while setting aside the order of the Controlling Authority dated 20.8.2020 and direction was issued to the petitioner-Bank to pay respondent No.2 Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date it became due till the actual date of payment. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied of the order of Appellate Authority dated 22.12.2020, petitioner - Bank has presented this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner - Bank vehemently contended that the petitioner-Bank has cancelled the order of appointment issued to respondent No.2 and terminating his services on 27.09.2017 with reference to the cancellation of caste certificate dated 19.7.1978 issued in favour of respondent No.2 in view of the letter of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee dated 07.09.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the services of respondent No.2 is terminated pursuant to cancellation of caste certificate, respondent No.2 is not entitled to gratuity. It is submitted that petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of gratuity in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1972. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relied on the following three decisions furnished along with the memo.