MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. N. Parwat, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Ms. Kanak Verma, learned counsel for the Union of India.

(2.) By invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dtd. 2/6/2020 as contained in Annexure-4, passed by learned Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) -cum- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the "Act of 1972") by which the respondent no.3 has been found entitled to get his gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 only without any amount of interest and further direction has been issued to the petitioner Bank to pay a total sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner gave a brief facts of the case stating that the private respondent no.3 had joined the service of the erstwhile Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 9/6/1979 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Field Supervisor and later on designated as Officer Junior Management (Grade-I). He further submits that while the petitioner was working as Branch Manager, in Kashichak Branch of the Bank, he was apprehended in connection with a trap case and accordingly a Vigilance P. S. Case no. 100 of 2009, under Sec. 7/13(2) and 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was instituted against him. He also submits that on account of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner was put to a departmental proceeding, which culminated into the dismissal with further direction that the same shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment. He next submits that the respondent no.3 had assailed the order of punishment in appeal, however, the same also stood dismissed. In the meantime, the private respondent had filed an application under the Act of 1972 for payment of his gratuity amount before the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)-cum-Controlling Authority on account of his alleged superannuation from the services of Bank w.e.f. 31/12/2014 resulting into registration of Case No. 48/1(33)/2018/ALC-PT. The petitioner appeared and filed its reply as well as supplementary reply denying all the allegation and also raised objections, inter alia, the claim being not maintainable and time barred. The Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)-cum-Controlling Authority after hearing the parties, allowed the said application vide order dtd. 2/6/2020 which is impugned herein.