LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-517

MANAGEMENT, KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. M VELU, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (GRATUITY) AND JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

Decided On October 04, 2010
Management, Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank Ltd Appellant
V/S
M Velu, Assistant Commissioner Of Labour (Gratuity) And Joint Commissioner Of Labour, Appellate Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a management of the Central Cooperative Bank, Kumbakonam. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd Respondent, the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Writ petition came to be filed.

(2.) The first Respondent was working as an Assistant General Manager in the Petitioner Bank. He joined in the Bank originally as a Supervisor on 27.08.1956 and after putting in 38 years of service, he retired from service on 30.04.1984. He was paid gratuity amount of Rs. 1,97,198/- as per the byelaws of the Society and the same was credited into the account of the first Respondent on 27.10.1995. The first Respondent was not satisfied with the quantum of gratuity paid, because according to him, 3 years period of his service has been omitted on some untenable grounds and the last drawn wages calculated by the Bank was not proper. While the Bank calculated the last drawn salary at Rs. 9,766/-, the first Respondent claimed the last drawn salary at Rs. 9,916/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the reduced payment of gratuity, he filed an application before the 2nd Respondent, the Controlling Authority. The 2nd Respondent took up the case as P.G. No. 32 of 1998 and issued notice to the Petitioner Bank. Before the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent claimed the differential gratuity and also interest as per law. The Writ Petitioner filed a counter and disputed the claim on three grounds. The first ground that under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, there is a ceiling and therefore, he cannot claim more than what is under the Act and whereas, the Bank has paid the amount in terms of the byelaw. The second ground that the Petitioner's entire service does not satisfactory and he had suffered suspension on two occasions. That was during 1974, 1976 and 1977-1979 and for that suspension period, he is not eligible for any gratuity. The third ground that the last drawn wages calculated was in accordance with the records of the Bank.