KUNJU MOHAMMED Vs. KSFE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as the Personnel Manager of the 4th respondent Corporation, had stood as a guarantor to various loans availed by some employees of the 4th respondent Corporation, agreeing to have deducted the dues from his salary or such other benefits, if the borrowers turned to be defaulters under any circumstances.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, the principal debtors did not remit the due amount, which made the petitioner to satisfy the demand made by the KSFE, by suffering attachment of a portion of his salary as agreed, the particulars of which have been given in the form of a statement as borne by Ext. P3. It is contended that, the petitioner retired from the service on 30/09/2008 and as such, no further proceedings could have been pursued against him or in respect of the amount payable to him from the 4th respondent by way gratuity and without any regard to this, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext. P4 'prohibitory order' instructing the 4th respondent not to disburse the amount due to be paid to the petitioner in respect of his service benefits. The petitioner challenges the sustainability of Ext. P4 'prohibitory order' on many a ground, legal and factual.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement pointing out that the petitioner had already agreed for recovery of the dues from his salary at source and also from the terminal benefits to be paid to him in the due course. A true copy of the said agreement has been produced as Ext. R1(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gratuity payable to the petitioner is under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This being the position, the gratuity payable under the Act can never sought to be attached under any circumstances, particularly in view of the Statutory bar created under S.13 of the Act and also by virtue of the overriding effect of the Act as provided under S.14.