STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ANIL VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Committee of Trustees, State Bank of India, Employees Provident Fund and the State Bank of India appeal against the order of the District Forum directing the payment of the cheque amount of Rs.51,330/- with ancillary reliefs to the respondent. Since this appeal could not be seriously pressed by Shri J. K. Verma, a senior official of the appellants who appeared on their behalf, it suffices to notice the facts with the utmost brevity.

(2.) The respondent Anil Vij in his complaint had alleged that he was an employee of the Mall Road Branch of State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. when he resigned on the 27th of May, 1990. During the service, he had contributed in all a sum of Rs.51,330/- to the Provident Fund account which consequently accrued to him. He moved an application for the refund of the said amount and a cheque of Rs.51,330/- drawn upon the appellant Bank was duly issued. However, when he presented the said cheque for payment, the appellant-Bank instead of honoring the same, retained the said cheque and pressurized him to pay the Housing Loan which the respondent had taken during the service in full. The complainant's firm plea was that as and when the instrument was presented the appellants were only bound to pay the cheque amount and could not withhold the payment of the provident fund for any collateral reasons. Finding unable to get redress the respondent then preferred the complaint.

(3.) Appellant No.1 neither filed its written statement nor was represented before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. On behalf of the appellant-Bank, written statement was filed raising a number of preliminary objections to which a reference becomes unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that a cheque for Rs.51,330/- was duly issued and presented for payment. However, the primal plea was that the same was not honored on the ground that a sum of Rs.1,09,000/-with interest was outstanding against the respondent. It was, however, admitted that the house of the complainant stood mortgaged against the said loan and the claim was that the bank had acted within its powers in refusing to honor the cheque. In the replication filed by the respondent, he reiterated his pleas in the complaint.