Dena Bank vs Manjulaben M. Thakor (Smt.) and Another

A.A. Sayed, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties: The petition impugns the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority dated 4.7.2011. By the impugned order, the Appellate Authority held that the Respondent, who is the wife of deceased workman, was entitled to the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,72,627 with simple interest @ 6% per annum from 4.4.2002 till 16.11.2011 aggregating to Rs. 2,72,146.

2 At the outset, it is contended that the. Application for the gratuity amount was filed by the Respondent after a substantial delay and the delay ought not to have been condoned. In view of the fact that the Controlling Authority by exercising his discretion has condoned the delay which order the Appellate Authority has confirmed, I am not inclined to exercise writ Jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with that finding.

The other contention of the Petitioner-Bank is as regards the deceased workman having committed an act involving moral turpitude and therefore not entitled to the gratuity amount u/s 4(6)(b)(ii) read with the- Plaintiffs'' Banks Service Regulations. It is of significance to note the operative part of the dismissal order of the deceased-workman from service. It reads as follows:

Dismissal from the services of the Bank which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment, with immediate effect and without notice.

4 From the aforesaid order it is manifestly clear that there is no direction of forfeiture of the gratuity amount which the deceased workman was otherwise entitled to, it being a statutory right. The Petitioner-Bank had also admittedly not initiated any penal action with a view to forfeit the gratuity amount. The charge-sheet did not speak of forfeiture of gratuity on the ground of ''moral turpitude'' and no inquiry has been conducted on this count. In view thereof, the issue of denial of the gratuity amount on the ground that the deceased workman having committed an act of ''moral turpitude'' is clearly an afterthought on the part of the Petitioner-Bank.

In my view, the impugned order is unexceptionable and no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to upset the findings of the Controlling Authority which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

6 I am however of the opinion, that the Petitioner-Bank cannot be penalised with interest for the period of delay on the part of the Respondent to make the Application for the gratuity amount since admittedly the deceased workman had been dismissed on 4.4.2002 and the Application for the gratuity amount was made only on 1.11.2007 after the workman expired on 14.9.2006.

In view thereof, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is modified to the extent that the simple interest @ 6% per. annum on the amount of Rs. 1,72,627 shall be calculated from the date of the Application viz. 1.11.2007 till payment. Let the amount be disbursed to the Respondent within three weeks from today.

8 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. At this stage, a request is made for stay of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant stay.