Allowed

K S Vasudeva Tatachar v. State Bank of Mysore

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2012WP/6559/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders rejecting a gratuity claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing pending departmental enquiry. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the lower orders, and remanded the matter for reconsideration, holding that the Act's provisions override internal regulations.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.

K S Vasudeva Tatachar Vs State Bank of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6559/2007(L-PG)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

K S VASUDEVA TATACHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YRS, S/O LATE K S SRINIVASA TATACHAR, EARLIER WORKING AS OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE – II, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, PPG SECTION, HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE -560 009 SINCE RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES OF THE BANK AND R/AT NO 512, BHUVANASHREE, 11A CROSS, 4TH MAIN, BEL LAYOUT, 3RD BLOCK, VIDHYARANYAPURAM BANGALORE – 560 097. ...PETITIONER

¶9

( BY SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, ADV.,[ABSENT] )

¶10

AND :

¶11

1 STATE BANK OF MYSORE A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUBSIDIARY BANKS') ACT, 1959 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE K G ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 009

¶12

2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AND REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) SHRAM SADAN, III CROSS, III MAIN

¶13

¶14

YESHWANTHPUR INDSUTRIAL SUBURB II STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 022

¶15

3 CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 AND ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) SHRAM SADAN, III CROSS, III MAIN YESHWANTHPUR INDUSTRUAL SUBURB II STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE- 560 022 ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

( BY SRI.S.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1; SMT.ROSA PARAMAL, CGC FOR R2 & R3 )

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT. 3.2.2004 PASSED BY R3 VIDE ANNEX.E. AND ORDER DT. 15.3.2007 PASSED BY R2 IN APPEAL NO.68 OF 2004-B2 VIDE ANNEX.J. AND DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER A SUM OF RS.3,50,000/- TOWARDS GRATUITY DUE TO HIM TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT 10% PER ANNUM FROM 1.7.99 TILL DATE OF PAYMENT & ETC.,

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

None appears for the petitioner. However, the matter is

¶21

considered on merit.

¶22

Petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority under the

¶23

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short referred to as 'the Act').

¶24

¶25

Petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 7 of the Act interalia contending that, he had worked in the respondent – Bank and he attained the age of superannuation on 30^th June 1999. However, his claim petition was rejected on the ground that, a departmental enquiry was pending against him. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Controlling Authority interalia observing that, under Regulation 46 Clause 2 of the State Bank of Mysore (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, which has come into force on 29.9.1995 wherein it is stated that, gratuity shall not be paid until the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings against the delinquent official or employee.

¶26

The contention of the petitioner is that, payment of gratuity is governed by a special enactment, it has overriding effect on all other provisions of law. As such, once the person attains the age of superannuation, he becomes entitled for payment of gratuity. However, both the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Act have erroneously rejected the claim petition.

¶27

¶28

What is relied by the Appellate Authority is the Regulation

¶29

framed by the Bank, however, the requirement of Section 4 subsection (1) of the Act for seeking payment of gratuity is that, the employee, either must have retired on attaining the age of superannuation or retired by virtue of resignation or death due to accident or disease. In such cases, employer is required to make the payment within 30 days from the date of cessation from the employment. However, only on the ground that, the Regulation does not permit the same, without even considering the overriding effect of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, both the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not considered the case of the petitioner on merit. I find that the contention of the petitioner merits and requires consideration.

¶30

If the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and if

¶31

there was no prohibition under the Payment of Gratuity Act for entertaining the claim petition for payment of gratuity, it could not have been dismissed only relying on the Regulations.

¶32

¶33

Hence, without expressing any opinion on merit, I find that

¶34

the matter requires reconsideration and it could be remanded to the Controlling Authority.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 3.2.2004 in Application No.48(13)2003-B3 passed by the Controlling Authority and Annexure-J dated 15.3.2007 in Appeal No.68/2004-B2 passed by the Appellate Authority, stand quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

KNM/-

K S Vasudeva Tatachar v. State Bank of Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Vasudeva Tatachar v. State Bank of Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Repair and Return Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Mahesh K

M S Nagaraja Vs the Executive Director

Venkataramana J L Vs the Principal M/S Vijaya Motor Driving School

N Chelvaraju Vs the Managing Director

Sri Giriyappa Vs the Additional Labour Commissioner