Quashed

Chandrakant Shankar Adake v. Veershaiv Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Jul 2022WP/5052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an Appellate Authority order under the Payment of Gratuity Act that forfeited gratuity based on misconduct. The Court held that forfeiture requires the misconduct to constitute an offence involving moral turpitude duly established in a court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive Rs. 3,50,000 gratuity plus 10% interest from 15th April 2008.

Chandrakant Shankar Adake Vs Veershaiv Co-Op… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

20-WP 5052-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5052 OF 2019

¶4

Chandrakant Shankar Adake .. Petitioner V/s

¶5

Veershaiv Co-Op. Bank Ltd & Anr. .. Respondents

¶6

¶7

Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioner. Mr. M. S. Topkar Respondent No. 1. Mr. Ramesh Cheulkar for Respondent No.2.

¶8

¶9

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE : 20^th JULY, 2022

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

By this Petition, Petitioner is challenging the order dated

¶12

3^rd November, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 setting aside the order dated 27^th February, 2015 passed by the Controlling Authority in PGA No. 50 of 2008, whereby the Controlling Authority had allowed the application of Petitioner and directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- towards the gratuity with interest @ 10% from 15^th April, 2008 till the date of realisation.

¶13

Mr. Topkar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1- Bank would submit that the Appellate Authority proceeded on

¶14

Nikita Gadgil 1/3

¶15

20-WP 5052-19.odt

¶16

the basis of the ratio laid down in Laxman Balu Deulkar Vs. The Chief Executive Off i cer, Kolhapur Distruct Central Co-op. Bank Ltd, in Writ Petition No. 9044 of 2017 dated 14^th June 2018 , that there was no requirement that charges against the employee are to be proved before the competent court and dismissal of services on account of such act involving moral turpitude is sufficient for forfeiture of amount of gratuity.

¶17

Learned counsel now fairly states that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. C. G. Ajay Babu and Anr.. 2018 III CLR 325 has observed that if there is no conviction of the employee for misconduct which according to bank is an offence involving moral turpitude, then there is no justification for the forfeiture of gratuity on that ground. He draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 20 of the said decision, which is quoted as under:-

¶18

“20. In the present case, there is no conviction of the respondent for the misconduct which according to the Bank is an offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, there is no justification for the forfeiture of gratuity on the ground stated in the order dated 20.04.2004 that the “misconduct proved against you amounts to acts involving moral turpitude”. At the risk of redundancy, we may state that the requirement of the statute is not the proof of misconduct of acts involving moral

¶19

Nikita Gadgil 2/3

¶20

20-WP 5052-19.odt

¶21

turpitude but the acts should constitute an offence involving moral turpitude and such offence involving moral turpitude and such offence should be duly established in a court of law.”

¶22

Mr. Ramesh Cheulkar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-LIC submits that the said amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 3,11,100/- was insured by the Respondent no. 1-Bank, which insurance payment has already been made to the Bank and as such if the payment is made to the Petitioner-employee by the Bank, that would not cause any loss to the bank.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the decisions cited above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 3^rd November, 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶24

Respondent No. 1-Bank is directed to make payment to the Petitioner of Rs. 3,50,000/- in addition to interest @ 10% from 15^th April, 2008 till the date of realisation within a period of four weeks.

¶25

Digitally NIKITA signed byNIKITAYOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date:2022.07.25 10:18:52 +0530

¶26

Nikita Gadgil

Chandrakant Shankar Adake v. Veershaiv Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Shankar Adake v. Veershaiv Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Krushna More Vs Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Mrs. Meera Chandrabhan Singh Thakur Sole Prop. of M/S Thakur Developers Vs Competent Auth. and Dist. Deputy Registrar of Co-Op. Soc. Dist. Thane and Ors.

Ladkya Rupa Kharpade Vs Laxman Jethya Dombre and Ors.

Anant Sadba Shelar Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector, Pune and Ors.

Madhusudan Brijlal Vakharia and Anr. Vs Jam-E-Jamshed Private Ltd. and Ors.

Madhusudan Brijlal Vakharia and Anr. Vs Jam E Jamshed Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.