LexJALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus PUNDALIKRAO LAXMANRAO SURYAWANSHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19 2
JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL
CO-OPERATIVE BANK
!TD.
v.
PUNDALIKRAO LAXMANRAO SURYAWANSHI & ORS.
September 3, 1969
[J. M. $HELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.)
Maharashtra Cooperath·e Societit!s Act, 1960 (~4 of 1961 )-Coopera-
t{v(! Bank-Bank fra1ni11g Gratuity Fund Rules, 1957 under its b)'t-law.r-
Rule 6 providing for payn1ent of gratui:y antfrule 10 prol'iding for contri-
bution by Bank 10 Gratuity Fund-Rll/es 6 and 10 not approred b1· Regis·
trar-Whetlter Rratuity payable bv l'irtue of Ruh•s 7 and 9-1\'t•11· Rules
framed rep/acing 1957 R11Jes-R11/r 16 of old mlrs whether protrcts vest·
ed interests o/ emp/O}'tes under old rules.
Respondent No. l retirod from the service of the appellant bank on
July 19, 1962 lifter 32 years of service.
Under the
Ban~·, bye·Iaws
Gratuity Fund Rules were sanctioned by the Board of Directors on August
17, 1957.
These rules were for\varded to the Registrar of Coope;ative
Societies for approval and they wer·;! approved \.Vi th some modification•
except Rule. -6, 10 and 15. On bis retirement Respondent No. I wao paid
a sum of Rs. 5.070·'- as gratuity.
He in!tituted arbitratil1n proceedings
in the Court of the Registrar's Nominee for a further sun1 of ~$/. 1,605/-
~ balance of gratuity payable to hin1 with interest at 6 per cent The clain1
Wa5 di!allowed and an appeal before the 1'.faharashtra State Cooperative
Tribunal also failed.
The High Court ho\l.:ever in a petition under Art.
227 of the Constitution allowed the respondent's clain1. ,The BJ!lk appealed
to thi• Couct, It was urged on behalf of the appc!lant (il that Rule 6,
the 1f1.5t sentence of which provides for the grant 1..)f gratuity and Rule 10
which provides for contribution<:; by 1hc. B::tnk to the Gratuity Fund not
having been approved by the Registrar, there remained no b1~;, for the
claim of gratuity by respondent no. I; (ii) that the old rules had neither
been repealed nor altered and the effect of retrospective operation of the
new rules was fhat the Regi•trar bad withdrawn bis approv.i to the old
rule! and enforced the- new one5.
HELD : (i) The argument that r. 6 not having been a!'proved there
was no rule unC·~r which the obligatinn to p.'.l.v gr:ltuitv arose ignored the
expre~s lan~ni:1.ec of r. 7 which. in unequivocal terms. rcq11ires ·{!ratuitv to
be granted in case of rctirl'.'n1ent. resi.gnation or
tcrn1in:->tion of service!!
according to the rate ~nccified therein.
Clau.;;e (a) of thi" rule contains
:ii provio:.ior. ~imiJar in effect to wh:it the l:ist srntencc of r. 6 direct<:., Rule
9 :ilc;o imoos~ an in1ner:ttive ohligation for the pavmc!lt of grafuitv undt'.'r
these n1les \\·ithin on~ n1onth frOm the rctirerr.cni-. resiCJnation, death or
termination of serv'.ce of the emplorec concerned. 1195 D--Fl
(ii) Tht> non~~1nproval of r. 10 hv the Ref.istn.1r al~o cnt1ld not make
the other rules ineffective and could not absolYc the B:ink of the ohlieation
irnoosrd on it by rr. 7. 8 and 9.
Onct~ the Gr;.Huitv Fund Rules imposin~
an ob1iiiation on the Bank to PBV watuitv to its erunlovees ore approved
by the R.e~istrar. then thii obli'tQtion C'8nnot he rendered nu&atory merely
because there is no 5ep:i.rate Gr~tuitv "f'und. ft 95 F-H1
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
JALGAON CO-OP. l!ANK v. PUNDALIKRAO (Dua J.)
193
A
ttn) It was conceded that the new rules could not detract from 01
prejudicially affect the vested rights crLated under the old rules. Old Rule
16 expressly prohibits the retrospeclive operation of the new rules with the
object of protecting the interests of the employees.
The effect of old r.
16 cannot be negatived by describing the process as mere withdrawal of
the approval of the old rules and enforcement of the nev.
ones.
[196
B-DI
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 944 of
1966.
Appeal by sp~cial leave from the judgment and order, dated
March 30, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appli-
cation No. 5 of 1964.
C
M. C. Chagla and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
D
E
F
G
H
Ganpat Rai and R. Mahalingier, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J.
Pundalikrao Laxmanrao Suryawanshi plaintiff (res-
pondent No. I in this Court) instituted arbitration proceedings in
the Court of the Registrar's Nomine.e against the Jalgaon District
Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jalgaon
(appellant in this
Court) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,605/- as the balance
of gratuity with inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.