LexJYOTIRMAY RAY versus THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
199 [2023] 14 S.C.R. 199 : 2023 INSC 979 199 CASE DETAILS JYOTIRMAY RAY v. THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6611 of 2015) NOVEMBER 06, 2023 [J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the denial of employer’s contribution of Provident Fund and non-payment of gratuity to the employee-appellant because of the order of compulsory retirement, as directed by the impugned order, is justifi ed. Service law – Retirement benefi ts – Payment of Provident Fund (employer’s contribution) and gratuity – Forfeiture of – Writ petition by Sr. Manager compulsorily retired, challenging denial of the benefi t of leave encashment, provident fund (employer’s contribution), gratuity and pension by the Bank – Bank’s plea that due to irregularities in granting loans and cash credit facilities, loss was caused to the Bank – Single Judge directed the Bank to release the provident fund (employer's contribution) as well as gratuity with interest and leave encashment, however denied the benefi t of pension – Division Bench maintained the order of grant of leave encashment, but set aside the grant of provident fund (Bank's contribution) and gratuity – Justifi cation: Held: Not justifi ed – Absence of any allegation in the chargesheet that by the act of the Manager, the Bank suff ered loss nor the quantifi cation of the amount of loss was done – Board of Directors did not aff ord an opportunity to the appellant on the issue of causing loss or damage to the Bank, prior to the passing of the resolution of appropriation of the contribution of the Bank from the provident fund account of the appellant – Findings recorded by the Single Judge with regard to payment of Bank's contribution of provident fund 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. is equitable, just and is upheld – As regards, forfeiture of gratuity, instant case is not a case of riotous behaviour of appellant or his involvement in any criminal case – While dealing with the issue of forfeiture of employers’ contribution of provident fund in the enquiry report, no fi nding regarding causing loss to the bank or on quantifi cation of the amount of loss has been recorded – Quantifi cation of loss not proved in the enquiry – Even otherwise, prior to passing of an order of forfeiture of gratuity, opportunity of hearing not aff orded to the appellant – Act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged in the instant case as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement – In view of the 1977 Regulations, 1979 Regulations, the Circular and the facts of the case, the fi ndings of the Single Judge upheld and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench set aside – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Punjab National Bank (Offi cers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Punjab National Bank Employees' Provident Fund Trust Rules – r. 13. [Paras 12, 13, 17, 22, 23 and 25-27] LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES UCO Bank and others vs. Anju Mathur decided on 07.03.2013 in LPA No. 566 of 2012 by Punjab & Haryana High Court – approved. B.R. Sharma vs. Syndicate Bank and others, 2015 SCC Online Del 13989; Canara Bank and another vs. Lalit Popli (Dead) through Legal Representatives (2018) 11 SCC 87 – distinguished. Y.K. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2013) 3 SCC 472: [2013 3 SCR 1189; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: [1984] 4 SCR 88; Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393: [1972] 3 SCR 622; The King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; Apren Joseph alias current Kunjukunju & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela 1973 (3) SCC 114: [1973] 2 SCR 16; Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690: [2001] 7 SCR 463 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6611 of 2015. 201 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2012 of the High Court at Calcutta in APO No.284 of 2012. Appearances: Irshad Ahmad, Adv. for the Appellant. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Samir Mudgil, Sumit Sharma, Ms. Anani Achumi, Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Shivani Sagar, Advs. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT J. K. MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Appellant, who was compulsorily retired as Sr. Manager, was denied the benefi t of leave encashment, employer’s contribution of provident fund, gratuity and pension by the Punjab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.