This court dismissed the appeal challenging a decree awarding retirement benefits. The court held that while the Payment of Gratuity Act allows forfeiture for loss, the appellant failed to prove actual damages or sufferance of loss sustained by the bank.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943
R FA NO. 313 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 462/1988 DATED 11.07.2007 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHANDAR MUKHI, 16TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 022.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.) SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 2-7:
RFA NO. 313 OF 2008
2
7 JULIET GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. LATE GEORGE.
8 PAUL V.G., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE GEORGE.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 8, ARE RESIDING AT VAZHAPPILLIL HOUSE,POWER HOUSE, ROAD, COCHIN-682 018, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM,, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK.
4TH RESPONDENT IS RESIDING AT 3/32, KOSAMBA, ONGC OFFICERS FLAT, MUMBAI-400 050.
R1&R2 BY ADVS.
SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR
SRI.P.VISWANATHAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RFA NO. 313 OF 2008
JUDGMENT
A suit for recovery of money claiming retirement benefits and compensation maintained by the wife of deceased, in which defendants 2 to 7 are her children born in the wedlock with her deceased husband V.M.George who died on 1/11/1982. The dismissal of the suit earlier on the ground of limitation was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court and remanded the matter back to the trial court. Thereon it was decreed. That decree is under challenge on the ground that since the employee/plaintiff was terminated from the service as a result of departmental enquiry, he is not entitled to any retirement benefits by virtue of the provisions contained in the Banking Regulation Act.
A conjoint reading of Section 4(6)(a) and Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act
RFA NO. 313 OF 2008
4
would show that a forfeiture would come into
play to the extent of damages or losses, if any sustained by the employer bank. But, the termination order was not produced or let in evidence. No evidence was adduced to show any damages or loss sustained, inspite of production of Exts.B1 to B10 documents. Ext.B1 is the copy of the letter dated 1/9/1978 issued by Central Bank of India, Audit and Inspection Department along with audit report. The major irregularities noted therein would show that it is only with respect to certain omissions in entering the voucher of purchase receipt of furniture items in the supplementary cash book and such other omissions and irregularities. Ext.B2 is the copy of charge sheet and Exts.B3, B4, B6 and B10 are the letters issued by the deceased employee. Ext.B5 is the copy of proceedings in the departmental enquiry. Exts.B7 and B8
5
RFA NO. 313 OF 2008
are the copies of O.P.No.1266/1978 and O.P.No.6363/1981 filed by the deceased before this Court. Ext.B9 is the copy of judgment. None of these documents would render any assistance to the case of plaintiff regarding the actual loss or damage sustained, if any. No oral evidence was also tendered by the defendant in this suit. Hence, the appeal fails, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee terminated due to departmental enquiry is entitled to retirement benefits despite departmental proceedings.
Whether the appellant proved damages or loss sustained by the employer to invoke forfeiture of gratuity.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Central Bank of India
Peter V.G.
Solomon V.G.
Mathew V.G.
Charlotte Paul
Antony V.G.
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
