GENERAL MANAGER, CANANRA BANK Vs. PRAKASH N. MANDVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties the matter is finally heard. Challenge in this petition has been made to an order dtd. 10/7/2019 passed by the Gratuity Appeals Nos. 60/18 and 61/18, whereby, Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Central Jabalpur has passed an order to pay gratuity amount alongwith interest to the respondent No.1. Challenge is being made on limited issue that whether the respondent No.1 is entitled for grant of interest for the delayed payment of gratuity by the authority or not?

(2.) It is pointed out that the petitioner are a cooperate body constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970 having its head office at Manipal and an incorporate office at Bangalore. The respondent no.1 was appointed on 2/4/1977 as Probationary Clerk by the Bank and was confirmed on 28/10/1977. While working in the petitioner's bank at its Gandhi Bagh, Nagpur Branch between 9/11/2010 to 30/9/2011, the respondent by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise by abusing his official position demanded and accepted pecuniary advantage of Rs.5000.00 from one Rakhika, a customer of the Bank on 14/7/2011. The respondent No.1 was trapped by ACB, CBI Nagpur on the complaint of the customer and after investigation , an FIR was registered against him for offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and a charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent No.1. A departmental enquiry was drawn up against the respondent no.1 and charges were found to be proved and the disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 31/5/2016 found that respondent No.1 liable for breach of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the respondent No.1. An appeal preferred by the respondent No.1, was rejected and thereafter show cause notice dtd. 19/10/2016 was issued to the respondent No.1, wherein, he was asked to submit a reply as to why his gratuity amount should not be forfeited. A reply was duly submitted by the respondent No.1 and the authority after considering reply of respondent No.1 had decided that the act committed by the respondent No.1 falls within the purview of offence involving moral turpitude, therefore, he was informed that he was not entitled for any gratuity as per Rule 8(1)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(3.) The respondent No.1/employee aggrieved by the action of the petitioner/bank had raised a claim in prescribed form before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur. The case was registered as ALC 36-(45) and the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and RLC, Bhopal. The controlling authority after considering the reply filed by the respondent No.1 as well as the evidence led by the authorities had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.1 was entitled for payment of gratuity and the claim to the tune of Rs.10.00 lac was allowed in favour of the respondent/employee. Thereafter a notice was for payment of gratuity to the bank in prescribed form on 27/3/2018 was issued, but no claim was granted by the authority. An appeal was preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, (Central) Jabalpur as well as by the employer and the appeal were registered as Gratuity Appeal Nos.60/18 and 61/18. The appellate authority vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal filed by the employer i.e. the petitioner and has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/employee and has further directed for payment of interest alongwith payment of gratuity.