TAMIL NADU KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES Vs. J BELLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.04.2000 made in W.P. No. 7014 of 1994, in and by which, the learned single Judge, after quashing the proceedings dated 04.11.1993, has directed the Khadi Board to settle the retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months with simple interest at 12% per annum from the date it fell due.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondent-petitioner.

(3.) It is seen from the materials placed that the respondent herein-writ petitioner was employed as Special Grade Khadi Assistant in the Khadi Craft, Coonoor. It is not in dispute that on attaining the age of superannuation, he was allowed to retire on 31.03.1993. It is clear from the proceedings dated 22.03.1993. It is also evident that on the date of retirement, he was asked to hand over the charge to one Sekar. In turn, Sekar took charge of the Coonoor Khadi Craft on 31.03.1993 i.e. on the date when the writ petitioner retired. The records also show that the other society, viz., Palada Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., agreed to pay the entire amount in instalments to the Khadi Board. Inspite of such assurance from the person, who purchased the materials from the Khadi Board, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 20.07.1993 calling upon him as to why an action should not be taken for recovery of Rs.1,14,541.40. It is not in dispute that no enquiry was conducted by the Khadi Board. The learned single Judge, by placing reliance to Sections 28 and 33 of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1959 and after finding that no legal proceedings should be launched against any person in the employment of the respondent for anything which was done in good faith pursuant to the provisions of the Act, has quashed the impugned proceedings dated 04.11.1993. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Board has brought to our notice the recovery order dated 20.08.1993 issued by the second appellant i.e. The Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Ooty, which is available at page 11 of the Additional typed set of papers filed in the writ appeal, we are of the view that in view of the provisions referred to above by the learned single Judge and of the fact that no enquiry was conducted prior to his retirement and also taking note of the fact that he was allowed to retire without any condition on the date of superannuation, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Further it is also not in dispute that the gratuity and provident fund cannot be attached for any contractual liability. In view of the factual position as mentioned above as well as as found in the order of the learned single Judge, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Khadi Board. Consequently, the same is dismissed. No costs.