The Nainital Bank and Another vs Sangeeta Mittal and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—The only dispute in the present appeal is whether the learned Judge, while allowing the writ petition, was correct in awarding interest at the rate of 6% on the arrears of salary, bonus, gratuity etc. and, directing that usual interest shall be payable on the amount of Provident Fund and Group Insurance.

The facts of this case, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that late Shri P.K. Mittal was an employee of the Appellants, who was suspended in view of he having been arrested and kept in prison for a period in excess of 48 hours, whereupon the said order of suspension was continued until the criminal case, in connection whereof he was arrested, was finally disposed of. The criminal case was disposed of in favour of Shri P.K. Mittal, when he was exonerated of all the charges. P.K. Mittal was thereupon reinstated, however, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Shri P.K. Mittal approached the Labour Court for certain reliefs but what was the nature of those reliefs are not decipherable from the records of the case. Be that as it may, the said case stood abated on 10th December, 1999, as Shri P.K. Mittal died on 20th September, 1999. Private Respondents, who are the legal representatives of Shri P.K. Mittal, claimed the amounts due and payable by the Appellants to Shri P.K. Mittal. Those were not paid by the Appellants. The Appellants insisted that the legal representatives of Shri P.K. Mittal must agree to allow the Appellants to keep in a fixed deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as security for a particular case. Therefore, the claim of the Appellants against P.K. Mittal or his legal representatives remained confined to Rs. 1,00,0000/- only. By the judgment and order under appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court has only directed payment of such sum of money, as would be found due and payable to Shri P.K. Mittal, after deducting the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned Judge has directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% on the amount so to be arrived. In the event, amount due is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, question of payment of any interest will not arise. In the event, amount due is more than Rs. 1,00,000/-, the fact remains that despite no claim thereon, the Appellants went on enjoying the fruits of the said amount, even after the death of Shri P.K. Mittal. For such enjoyment, law of compensation requires payment of interest. We find no scope of interference with the direction to pay interest.

The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.