Jyotirmay Ray vs The Field General Manager, Punjab National Bank & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 6611 of 2015

Result

Allowed

Bench

J.K. Maheshwari, K.V. Viswanathan

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 199 : 2023 INSC 979

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 justified.

Headnote

Service law – Retirement benefits – Payment of Provident Fund (employer’s contribution) and gratuity – Forfeiture of – Writ petition by Sr. Manager compulsorily retired, challenging denial of the benefit 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 benefit 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 – Justification: Held: Not justified – Absence of any allegation in the chargesheet that by the act of the Manager, the Bank suffered loss nor the quantification of the amount of loss was done – Board of Directors did not afford 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 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 finding regarding causing loss to the bank or on quantification of the amount of loss has been recorded – Quantification of loss not proved in the enquiry – Even otherwise, prior to passing of an order of forfeiture of gratuity, opportunity of hearing not afforded 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 findings of the Single Judge upheld and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench set aside – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Punjab National Bank (Officers’) 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

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT J. K. MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Appellant, who was compulsorily retired as Sr. Manager, was denied the benefit of leave encashment, employer’s contribution of provident fund, gratuity and pension by the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). On rejection of his representation by the authorities, a challenge was made by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The said writ petition was contested by the Bank, taking the plea that due to irregularities in granting loans and cash credit facilities under the Credit Guarantee Fun

View Subscription Plans →