Nilakantha Das Vs the Dy. Chief Labour Commnr. Central and Appellate Authority Under P.G. Act., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nilakantha Das Vs the Dy. Chief Labour Commnr. Central and Appellate Authority Under P.G. Act., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the Appellate Authority's order (Annexure-5); writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to reiterate his gratuity claim before the Bank if he succeeds in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018, such claim to be considered in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 16.05.2023 of the Appellate Authority (Annexure-5), which set aside the Controlling Authority's gratuity award dated 19.07.2022 solely on the ground of the petitioner's post-retirement disciplinary punishment (removal from service and recovery of Rs.12,00,089/-) under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation, is sustainable in the eye of law.

Court's answer

This Court, after going through Regulation 72 of the Regulation, is of the view that the Appellate Authority has rightly taken the view, taking into account the nature of punishment imposed against the petitioner vide order dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure-2).

Ratio / Principle

For the present, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-5; however, if the petitioner succeeds in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018, he can reiterate his claim before the Bank, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.23184 of 2023 (decided 03.12.2025, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy): Nilakantha Das v. The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority (O.P. No.1) and The Bank (O.P. No.2). On retirement, the petitioner obtained a gratuity award from the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (order dated 19.07.2022, Annexure-4). The Bank appealed (Application No.36(38)/2022-B.1) and the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure-5), set the award aside only on the ground that, in a disciplinary proceeding initiated after retirement, the petitioner had been punished vide order dated 29.04.2017 (Annexure-2) with removal from service and recovery of Rs.12,00,089/-, invoking Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation governing his service conditions - whose quoted text makes every officer and employee eligible for gratuity on termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service, with a proviso that there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct except where such misconduct causes financial loss to the Bank, and in that case to that extent only. The petitioner's appeal against the punishment was dismissed and the matter is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018. Holding that the Appellate Authority had rightly taken the view in light of the nature of the punishment, this Court did not interfere with Annexure-5 and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to reiterate his gratuity claim before the Bank should he succeed in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018, such claim to be considered in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.23184 of 2023

Nilakantha Das

…. Petitioner

Mr. Surendra Nath Panda, Advocate -versus-

The Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority and Another

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate for O.P. No.2

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

03.12.2025

12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 16.05.2023, so passed by the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act in Application No.36(38)/2022-B.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on his retirement from services when the Gratuity entitlement of the petitioner was not released, claiming the same, he moved the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority when allowed the claim vide order dated 19.07.2022, Opp. Party-Bank challenging the same moved O.P. No.1-the Appellate Authority by filing Application No.36(38)/2022-B.1.

// 2 //

4. 1. The Appellate Authority only on the ground that in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, petitioner since has been imposed with a punishment of termination and recovery of Rs.12,00,089/-, in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation, governing the service condition of the petitioner, petitioner is not entitled to get the gratuity amount as allowed by the Controlling Authority in its order dated 19.07.2022 under Annexure-4.

4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since such an order of punishment was passed after the retirement of the petitioner, even on the face of the provisions contained under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation, the order passed by the Controlling Authority could not have been set aside by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned order under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation contended that after the retirement of the petitioner, in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, petitioner was punished vide order dated 29.04.2017 under Annexure-2 and vide the said order, petitioner was removed from his services and recovery of Rs.12,00,089/- was directed against him.

5. 1. In view of the provision contained under Regulation 72, Appellate Authority rightly allowed the appeal so filed

Page 2 of 4

// 3 //

by the Bank vide order under Annexure-5. Regulation 72 of

the Service Regulation reads as follows:-

“72. Gratuity

2. Every officer and employee shall be eligible for gratuity on-

(e) Termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service.

Provided that in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the Bank and in that case to that extent only.” 5. 2. It is also contended that against the order of punishment petitioner preferred an appeal and after dismissal of the appeal, matter is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018. It is contended that since the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority after being confirmed in appeal, the matter is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

6. To the submission made by the learned counsel for the Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission, contending inter alia that after dismissal of the appeal so filed against the order of punishment, petitioner has already approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that claim of the petitioner to get the retirement gratuity as due and admissible was allowed by the Controlling Authority vide order dated 19.07.2022 under Annexure-4. The Bank when

Page 3 of 4

// 4 //

challenged the said order by filing an appeal, Appellate Authority-O.P. No.1 vide order under Annexure-5 dated 16.05.2023, allowed the same, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulation.

7. 1. This Court after going through Regulation 72 of the Regulation, is of the view that the Appellate Authority has rightly taken the view, taking into account the nature of punishment imposed against the petitioner vide order dated 29.04.2017 under Annexure-2.

7. 2. In that view of the matter, this Court for the present is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-5. However, it is observed that if petitioner succeeds in W.P.(C) No.13212 of 2018, petitioner can reiterate his claim before the Bank, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 08-Dec-2025 11:26:05

Page 4 of 4