DENA BANK Vs. SHARAD GOVIND GOVERDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India intends to challenge the order dtd. 25/2/2014 passed by the appellate authority, payment of gratuity Act and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur. Vide the said order, the appellate court has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner- Bank under the provisions of Sec. 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short, the Act).

(2.) The brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present petition is that, the respondent No.1 in the instant case was an employee working with the management of Dena Bank and was posted as a Branch Manager at Ambagarh Chowki Branch, Distt. Rajnandgaon. The said respondent was issued with a charge sheet dtd. 29/7/2000 alleging certain misconduct that have been committed by him during the course of his tenure as Branch Manager. Subsequently, the respondent was subjected to Departmental Enquiry and the inquiry officer also found that the charges have been proved against the respondent and finally vide order dtd. 11/9/2001 imposed a punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect.

(3.) Subsequently, the respondent is said to have moved an application before the Controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act on 19/8/2011 for release of his payment of gratuity. What is pertinent to note at this juncture is also the fact that vide order dtd. 14/11/2001, the petitioner-Bank has passed an order of forfeiture of the payment of gratuity payable to the respondent-employee. The petitioner-bank has entered into appearance before the controlling authority and had filed a detailed reply opposing grant of payment of gratuity to the respondent and has also taken an objection that the application was barred by limitation at the first instance and on the merits also the respondent- employee was not entitled for payment of gratuity on two grounds firstly, that his services has been dismissed by way of an order of punishment and therefore he is not entitled for gratuity and secondly, the dismissal order was on account of serious misconduct committed by him which had put the Bank to great financial loss.