Orissa High Court
Cuttack Central Co-Operative vs The Joint Labour Commissioner on 9 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022
Cuttack Central Co-operative
Bank Ltd. ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
The Joint Labour Commissioner,
Bhubaneswar-cum-Appellate
Authority under Payment of
Gratuity Act, Odisha & others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.J. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. T.K. Biswal,
AGA
For Opp. Party Nos.4 : Mr. S. Das,
Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 16.07.2024 Date of Judgment: 09.10.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J.
1. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner Bank challenging the judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act- Cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, shortly W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 1 of 37 hereinafter, 'the Appellate Authority', in P.G. Appeal Case No.09 of 2021, vide which the order dated 13.01.2020 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act-Cum- Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack shortly hereinafter, 'the Controlling Authority', in P.G. Case No.07 of 2018 was confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as detailed in the Writ Petition, is that the Petitioner Bank i.e. the Cuttack Central Co- operative Bank, is a Society registered under the Odisha Co- operative Societies Act, 1962, shortly hereinafter, 'OCS Act, 1962'. The Opposite Party No.4, since the date of his joining in the bank, committed various irregularities so also misappropriated public money, for which he was charge-sheeted so many times during his service tenure. All the charges were also admitted by the Opposite Party No.4 and after enquiry, punishment of warning not to commit such mistake was given. However, before his superannuation, Cuttack Vigilance PS Case No.43 dated 29.06.2011 was initiated against him for commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 468/420/120-B of Indian Penal Code, which is still pending against the Opposite Party No.4 and others.
W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 2 of 37
It is the case of the Petitioner that, while the Opposite Party No.4 was working in Bari Branch, an Audit was conducted and some irregularities were noticed. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Petitioner Bank issued Memorandum of Charges against the Petitioner vide Letter dated 31.01.2004 and sought for explanation from the Opposite Party No.4. In his explanation the Opposite Party No.4 admitted that he was forced to check the disbursement statement by the then Branch Manager, which he has never attached. However, after enquiry, he was reinstated in service holding that the period of suspension is to be treated as such. Two annual increments were disallowed without cumulative effect and he was given a stern warning not to repeat the same in future.
While the matter stood thus, on verification of records in the year 2008, the Area Officer, Jajpur again noticed some irregularities and fraudulent transactions, while the Opposite Party No.4 was working as an Accountant in Bari Branch, for which explanation was sought for vide Letter dated 28.01.2008.
On enquiry the Petitioner Bank came to know that while Opposite Party No.4 was in charge of Accountant in Bari Branch, one Sunil Kumar Routray, Manager-cum-Cashier of the Branch, connived with the Opposite Party No.4, misappropriated the bank funds by tampering the records. The Petitioner was W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 3 of 37 asked to show cause vide letter dated 18.10.2008. Subsequently, in the year 2011, on an inquiry made by the Vigilance Authority, a vigilance case was initiated against the Opposite Party No.4 and others for commission of offence under Section13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 468/420/120-B of Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was intimated by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance vide letter dated 02.07.2011 for taking appropriate action against the Opposite Party No.4 and others.
It is also case of the Petitioner that the Opposite Party No.4, while working as Assistant Manager-I, was superannuated from service w.e.f. 28.02.2013. As the Vigilance Case had already been initiated much before his retirement and documents were seized by the Vigilance Authority, no proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner Bank against the Opposite Party No.4 before his retirement. As the gratuity amount was with the Petitioner Bank, it did not release the same in favour of the Opposite Party No.4. Hence, the Opposite Party No.4 approached the Controlling Authority (O.P.2) claiming Rs.6,17,513/- towards gratuity and interest. As the Petitioner could not appear before the Controlling Authority, despite issuance of notice due to some unavoidable circumstances, an ex-parte judgment was passed on 13.01.2020 W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 4 of 37 directing the Petitioner Bank to deposit Rs.9,79,054/- within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment, which came to the knowledge of the Petitioner after the initiation of the certificate proceeding against it before the Sub-Collector, Cuttack, Sadar. However, the period of limitation to challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority had elapsed by then. Thus, the Petitioner challenged the ex-parte judgment so also certificate proceeding before this Court. The Writ Petition stood disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2021 directing the Petitioner Bank to file an Appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay within 10 days. Accordingly, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority (O.P.1) which was registered as P.G. Appeal Case No.09 of 2021. The Opposite Party No.1, after hearing, confirmed the order passed by Controlling Authority vide judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.9,79,054/- towards gratuity along with interest. Hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Only the confirming order passed by the Appellate Authority has been challenged in this Writ Petition basically on the following grounds;
i) The Appellate Authority has not applied his
judicious mind to access the documents
W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 5 of 37
pertaining to recovery filed by the Petitioner Bank so also the fact regarding pendency of vigilance case against the Opposite Party No.4 for misappropriation of bank money.
ii) The Appellate Authority should have borne in mind that the Petitioner Bank was set ex-parte by the Controlling Authority, for which it was neither able to file the documents in respect of damages caused by the Opposite Party No.4 nor got chance to lead rebuttal evidence.
iii) As per sub-section 6(a) of Section 4 of the P.G. Act, the Authority can wholly or partly forfeit the claim of the applicant towards gratuity, if the delinquent employee makes any damage or loss to the organization while in service. As the Opposite Party No.4 was involved in misappropriation of money of the Petitioner Bank, the departmental inquiry was pending against him at the time of his superannuation. As the Opposite Party No.4 was held responsible for financial irregularity, his gratuity was forfeited by a written order passed by the Management. Thus, W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 6 of 37 there is no irregularity or illegality on the part of the Petitioner to withhold the gratuity of the Opposite Party No.4.
4. Though it is a Writ of Certiorari and no Counter is necessary, the Opposite Party No.4 has filed a Counter Affidavit disputing the facts so also opposing to the prayer of the Petitioner stating therein that he was working under the Petitioner Bank w.e.f. 11.03.1981 till 28.02.2013 on which date he was superannuated from service while working in Bari Branch of Petitioner Bank as Assistant Manager. The total qualifying period of service was 33 years and his last drawn salary was Rs.29,940/-. After his retirement from service, though he requested the Petitioner Bank for payment of gratuity of Rs.6,17,513/-, the same was not paid to him. Because of non- payment of gratuity so also interest for the delayed payment, he had approached the Controlling Authority vide P.G. Case No.07 of 2018. The Controlling Authority, after analyzing several pronouncements of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the facts on record, allowed the claim of the Opposite Party No.4 vide order dated 13.01.2020 directing to deposit an amount of Rs.9,75,054/- in his favour, which includes interest, within the period of 30 days, failing which it was ordered W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 7 of 37 to pay simple interest @ 10% per annum over and above the said awarded amount. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner Bank preferred Appeal No.09 of 2021 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 28.03.2022 confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority and directed the Petitioner Bank to pay the gratuity along with admissible interest to the Opposite Party No.4 in terms of the provisions made under the Orissa Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1974, shortly hereinafter, "the Rules, 1974". It has further been stated in the Counter that the Petitioner Bank deliberately withheld the gratuity of the Opposite Party No.4 without any authority, after allowing him to retire from service on superannuation.
It has also been stated that as per Section 7(3A) read with the Central Government Notification dated 01.10.1987, he is entitled to 10% simple interest for the delayed period. Therefore, the order of imposition of interest in terms of section 7(3A) under the Act, 1972 is justified and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In response to the Counter filed by the Opposite Party No.4, the Petitioner Bank has filed a Rejoinder stating therein that the Opposite Party No.4, while in service, caused a huge financial loss to the Bank by several acts of omissions and commissions, for W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 8 of 37 which Surcharge Proceeding No.20 of 2008 was initiated against him, which is still pending.
Apart from reiterating the facts of initiation of vigilance case, it has further been stated that as the Opposite Party No.4 was fully aware that the amount misappropriated is more than the gratuity amount, he never submitted any application for releasing the gratuity. Instead, though the Opposite Party No.4 was superannuated from service in the year 2013, approached the Controlling Authority after the delay of more than five years in the year 2018.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Labour Commissioner and others reported in (2008) 2 LLJ 841 P&H, judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Vs. Rabindranath Choubey reported in (2020) 18 SCC 71 so also judgment of this Court in State of Odisha and another Vs. Joseph Barik and others passed in W.A. No.805 of 2021 and batch, submitted that the Petitioner Bank has a right to withhold the gratuity of the Opposite Party No.4, as vigilance case bearing PS Case No.43 dated 29.06.2011 for misappropriation of bank fund of Rs.1,76,271/- is still pending against the Opposite Party No.4. W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 9 of 37 That apart, Surcharge Proceeding is still pending against the Opposite Party No.4 in terms of provisions under the OCS Act, 1962.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank further submitted that the Petitioner Bank, though was duly noticed by the Controlling Authority, could not participate in the said proceeding due to official dislocation, for which it was set ex-parte. Taking advantage of such non-appearance, the Opposite Party No.4 suppressed the fact regarding pendency of vigilance case against him before the Vigilance Court, Cuttack. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal Case No.09 of 2021, while passing the impugned order of confirmation, it did not take note of the said admitted fact and also misread the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rabindranath Choubey (supra) and erroneously passed the impugned order with an observation that the Petitioner Bank has deliberately withheld the gratuity of the Opposite Party No.4 without any authority of law, after allowing him to retire on superannuation.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 submitted that the employees of the Petitioner Bank are governed under the Staff Service Rules, 2011 of Central W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 10 of 37 Cooperative Banks. Thus, OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 so also Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 are not applicable to the employees of the Petitioner Bank. Further, as per Rule 50 of the Staff Service Rules, 2011, the Opposite Party No.4 is entitled for gratuity as per the provisions under the Act, 1972, read with the Rules, 1974.
Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 further submitted that, in terms of the provisions under Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the Employer is only entitled to forfeit gratuity of an employee partially or wholly, whose service has been terminated. Since the Opposite Party No.4 was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013, the Petitioner Bank has no authority under law to withhold or forfeit the gratuity of his client. Further, there is no such specific provision in the Staff Service Rules, 2011, applicable to the employees of the Petitioner Bank, for initiation or continuation of any disciplinary proceeding against an employee after his retirement. Thus, as per the settled position of law, in the absence of any specific provision to the said effect, the plea of the Petitioner to forfeit the gratuity because of pendency of purported vigilance case so also surcharge proceeding against the Opposite Party No.4 is untenable.
W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 11 of 37
That apart, the Petitioner Bank failed to substantiate before the Appellate Authority so also before this Court as to pendency of any departmental proceeding against his client. Even if any proceeding was allegedly pending as on 28.02.2013, the same is beyond the knowledge of his client. Apart from the same, there is no such service rule of the bank for continuance of disciplinary proceeding after allowing an employee to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.
8. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of this Court reported in 2022 (III) ILR-CUT-639, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 submitted that his client is entitled for 10% simple interest per annum on the gratuity amount from the date of his superannuation till the date of actual payment. Though the period from 01.03.2013 till 13.01.2020 is six years ten months twelve days, but the Controlling Authority (O.P.2) has wrongly calculated interest from 01.03.2013 till 13.01.2020 i.e. the date of judgment, to be five years ten months twelve days in P.G. Case No.7 of 2018, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority (O.P.1) in P.G. Appeal Case No.9 of 2021.
Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 further submitted that admittedly the Opposite Party No.4 was W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 12 of 37 allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. There is no such provision either under the H.R. Policy of Central Cooperative Banks incorporating Staff Service Rules, 2011 applicable to the employees of Petitioner Bank or in the Act, 1972 for withholding Gratuity on account of pendency of vigilance case, departmental proceeding or surcharge proceeding against an employee of the Petitioner Bank after allowing the concerned employee to retire from service on superannuation.
Mr. Das submitted that the Petitioner Bank is not remediless. It can always take recourse to filing of dispute case under Section 68 of OCS Act, 1962, followed by execution proceeding under Section 103 of OCS Act, 1962 for realization of the alleged recoveries, if any.
It was further submitted that after retirement, though the Opposite Party No.4 has specifically represented to the Chief Executive Office/Secretary of the Petitioner Bank on various dates in between 2015 to 2020 for release of gratuity and retirement benefits, no communication was ever made to his client rejecting the said representations. No information was ever given to his client for forfeiture or adjustment or withholding the gratuity.
9. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 submitted that as the Petitioner Bank failed to appear on the date fixed, W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 13 of 37 despite service of notice, in terms of Rule 11(5) of the Rules, 1974, the Controlling Authority passed an ex-parte order after hearing the Opposite Party No.4. Since no sufficient reason was assigned by the Petitioner Bank before the Controlling Authority within 30 days of the ex-parte order, the Petitioner Bank is estopped to raise the self-same issue.
10. To substantiate his submissions, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 relied on the judgments of this Court in Senior Branch Manager, NSIC Ltd. & another Vs. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), reported in 2024 (I) ILR CUT 1421, Sharat Chandra Lenka Vs. Orissa State Warehousing Corporation & another, passed in W.P.(C) No.24276 of 2014, Pratap Kishore Dash Vs. High Court of Orissa and others, reported in 109 (2010) CLT 12, MD OSIC Vs. Abhaya Kumar Samantray, reported in 2022 (III) ILR CUT 639 so also judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666, Calcutta Dock Labour Board and another Vs. Smt. Sandhya Mitra and others, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 1, H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corp. Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40. He also relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Rajinder Kumar Nangia Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals & W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 14 of 37 Fertilizers Ltd., passed in W.P. No.38 of 1995 so also judgment of Keral High Court in E-Team Informatica India (P) Ltd. Vs. Mathew M. Gerorge and others, passed in W.P.(C) No.9642 of 2018.
11. On perusal of the order dated 13.01.2020, passed by the Controlling Authority, it is found that the Petitioner Bank (Opposite Party in P.G. Case No.07 of 2018), being noticed, did not appear on 14.01.2019. Hence, it was set ex-parte on the very same day. Delay was condoned on an application being filed by the Opposite Party No.4. All the four Issues were answered in favour of the Opposite Party No.4. However, while answering Issue No.4, as to what should be the quantum of gratuity payable to the Opposite Party No.4, it was held that he is entitled for gratuity of Rs.6,17,513/- so also interest @ 10% on the said amount from the date it became due till the date of payment. While ordering so, the Controlling Authority relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court so also judgment of Allahabad High Court as well as this Court.
12. From the pleadings and documents on record so also arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is amply clear that despite issuance of notice to the Petitioner Bank, it chose not to appear before the Controlling Authority, as a result W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 15 of 37 of which an ex-parte judgment was passed on 13.01.2020 directing the Petitioner Bank to deposit an amount of Rs.9,79,054/- within a period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. Thereafter, the Petitioner Bank, instead of preferring an Appeal, as provided under section 7(7) of the Act, 1972, directly approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.7283 of 2021, which was disposed of on 01.03.2021 giving liberty to the Petitioner Bank to prefer an Appeal.
13. Liberty being granted, the Petitioner Bank preferred Appeal No.9 of 2021 basically on the grounds that one vigilance case bearing Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.43 dated 29.06.2011 is pending against the Opposite Party No.4 for misappropriation of bank fund of Rs.1,76,271/- before the Vigilance Court, Cuttack. That apart, allegation of misappropriation of Rs.60,370/- in terms of Special Audit Report so also Rs.35,000/- from SBD Account is lying against him. The Petitioner Bank remained silent because of pendency of the said vigilance case. The Opposite Party No.4 did not pursue before the Authorities for speedy disposal of the said proceedings, which are still pending for disposal. Though notice given by the Controlling Authority was duly served on the Petitioner Bank directing it to appear on 14.01.2019, due to illness of the Law Officer, adequate steps could not be taken by W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 16 of 37 the Petitioner Bank towards filing of Objection before the Controlling Authority. As a result, the said Application was decided ex-parte vide order dated 13.01.2020 directing the Petitioner Bank to deposit Rs.9,79,054/- within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the said judgment.
A further ground was urged in the Appeal that there was sufficient cause to held up the gratuity so also retiral benefits of the Opposite Party No.4 because of the aforesaid reasons and the said facts could not be brought to the notice of the Controlling Authority. That apart, a ground was also taken before the Appellate Authority that in view of the provisions under Clause- 6(a) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972, the Petitioner/Appellant Bank stopped payment of gratuity to the Opposite Party No.4 (Respondent before the Court below) after his retirement because of pendency of the said proceedings against him.
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rabindranath Choubey (supra) it was stated that in view of the said judgment, the gratuity amount as well as retirement benefits were rightly held up till finalization of the proceeding pending against the Opposite Party No.4.
14. As it reveals from the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, taking into W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 17 of 37 consideration the said grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal, it was held as follows:-
"5. xxxx xxxx xxxx On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Controlling Authority, it appears that the issues were framed and the said issues have been answered by the learned Controlling Authority in affirmative in favour of the respondent No.1. So far the relevant service rules of the bank, it is crystal clear that the employees of Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., are entitled to gratuity as per the provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Orissa Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1974.
The rules of the Bank clearly speaks as follows:-
"Every employee of the Bank shall be entitled to payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with the Orissa Payment of Gratuity Rule, 1974."
In so far as Sec. 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is concerned, the same read as follows;
(b) The gratuity payable to an employee (may be wholly or partially forfeited)-
(i) If the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or
(ii) If the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.
6. On perusal of the "Staff Service Rule, as well as Sec.4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is made clear that if the service of an employee have been terminated for any act which constitute an offence involving moral turpitude that the Authority is empowered to withheld the gratuity wholly or partly. But in the present case, the respondent No.1 has not been terminated rather he was allowed to retire by the appellant bank on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2013. Neither in the W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 18 of 37 Staff Service Rule nor in the Payment of Gratuity Act, there is any provision for withholding of gratuity merely on pendency of a criminal case or departmental proceeding against the employee who has been allowed to retire on superannuation by the employer.
Since, in the present case at hand, the respondent No.1 has been allowed to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2013 as per the order passed by the appellant bank and all his retirement dues along with gratuity has not been paid to him. But withholding his gratuity after his superannuation is not tenable since the gratuity amount of the respondent No.1 is protected under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India as the Hon'ble Apex Court has termed the gratuity amount of an employee as property.
xxxx xxxx xxxx After going through the relevant service rules as well as argument advanced by the advocate for the respective parties as well as stand taken in the appeal, it is made clear that withholding of gratuity on account of merely pendency of vigilance case against the respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Staff Service Rules read with Sec.4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and it is made clear that the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant has no force at all.
8. Mr. P.K. Rout argued that in the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. Vrs. Rabindranath Choubey : AIR 2020 SC 2978", the respondent No.1 is not entitled for gratuity.
On perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is crystal clear that the fact of the said case is not identical to the present one. In that case, a departmental proceeding is pending against the employee of the MCL as per CDA Rules, 1978 and as per the relevant Service Rules i.e., Rules, 34.3 of the CDA Rules, 1978 in which there was a provision for "withholding of gratuity during pendency of disciplinary proceeding". But in the present case no such provision is there under the Staff Service Rules for withholding of gratuity amount of a retire W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 19 of 37 employee on account of pendency of criminal case. As such, the fact of that case is totally a different one from the present case at hand.
xxxx xxxx xxxx On perusal of record as well as impugned order it is found that since the appellant bank has deliberately withheld the gratuity of the respondent No.1 without any authority of law after allowing the respondent No.1 to retire on superannuation, the order of imposition of interest as per Sec. 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is justified in the present situation.
10. Considering the argument advanced by the respective parties as well as on perusal of the documents filed and going through the arguments filed by the respective parties, it is crystal clear that the respondent No.1 has been allowed to retire on superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2013 by the appellant bank and since there is no such provision under the Staff Service Rules, read with Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for withholding of gratuity on account of pendency of a vigilance case departmental proceeding after superannuation of the employee of the Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., this court came to a conclusion that the learned Controlling Authority has not committed any error while passing the order dt. 13-1-2020 in P.G. case No.07 of 2018 and directing the appellant bank to pay the gratuity along with admissible interest to the respondent No.1 as per provisions of the Orissa Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1974. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Admittedly, the Opposite Party No.4, while working as Assistant Manager in Bari Branch of the Petitioner Bank, was superannuated from service w.e.f. 28.02.2013. Since the Petitioner Bank did not pay the amount of gratuity along with interest, the Opposite Party No.4 approached the Controlling Authority vide W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 20 of 37 P.G. Case No.07 of 2018. Despite notice, the Petitioner Bank did not appear before the Controlling Authority. However, because of the facts detailed above, liberty being granted by this Court, it approached the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal Case No.9 of 2021, taking a plea of not taking any disciplinary action against the Opposite Party No.4 on the ground of pendency of vigilance case so also surcharge proceeding so also its right to withhold gratuity and other after retiral benefits of the Opposite Party No.4 on the said ground.
As held by the Supreme Court in Rabindranath Choubey (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank, the employer has a right to continue with the departmental proceeding even after retirement of an employee, if the service rules of the employer provides so and impose the punishment, including the punishment of dismissal, if the employee is found guilty.
It was further held by the Supreme Court in the said case that in view of the specific service rules of the employer in the said case to withhold gratuity during pendency of departmental as well as criminal proceeding against an employee, it was justified to do so. However, so far as the Petitioner Bank is concerned, admittedly, there is no such service rule with regard to initiation W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 21 of 37 or continuance of departmental proceeding or withholding or forfeiting the gratuity. Rather, the service rules of the Petitioner Bank provides as to applicability of the Act, 1972 so far as payment of gratuity to its employees.
Sub-section (3A) of Section 7 of the Act, 1972 permits the employer to withhold the gratuity of a retired employee, subject to seeking permission from the Controlling Authority to do so, failing which the employer is liable to pay interest.
Similarly, as provided under sub-section (6) (b) of the Act, 1972, gratuity payable to an employee can be wholly or partially forfeited, if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part; or, if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in course of his employment.
Admittedly, though this Court granted liberty to the Petitioner Bank to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972, the Petitioner Bank failed to demonstrate before the Appellate Authority that the service rules of the employer entitles it to withheld the gratuity of an employee after his retirement. It also failed to demonstrate before the W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 22 of 37 Appellate Authority regarding the fact of initiation of any disciplinary proceeding and continuance of the same after his retirement. That apart, it also failed to demonstrate before the Appellate Authority regarding any communication made to the Opposite Party No.4 indicating therein as to its intention to withheld or forfeit the gratuity earned by the Opposite Party No.4- Employee. Rather, it chose to remain silent on the plea of pendency of vigilance case so also surcharge proceeding against the Opposite Party No.4.
16. This Court in a recent judgment in The Sr. Branch Manager, the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (supra), taking note of various provisions under the Act, 1972 so also Rules, 1972 and various judgments of the Supreme Court held as follows:
"42. On examination of the various legal provisions under the Act, 1972 and Rules made thereunder so also the Judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties, as detailed above, this Court is of the following views:
a) As prescribed under section 4(1) of the Act, 1972, gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years on his superannuation or on his retirement or resignation or on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. However, completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement.W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 23 of 37
b) In terms of section 7(1) of the Act, 1972 read with rule 7(1) & (6) of the Rules, 1972, a person, who is eligible for payment of gratuity under the said Act, 1972 or any person authorized, in writing, to act on his behalf, shall send a written application to the Employer in Form 'I' ordinarily within thirty days from the date the gratuity became payable, either by personal service or by registered post acknowledgement due.
c) As provided under rule 7 (1) of the Rules, 1972, where the date of superannuation or retirement of an employee is known, the employee may apply to the Employer before thirty days of the date of superannuation or retirement for payment of gratuity.
d) Rule 7(5) of the Rules, 1972 provides that an application for payment of gratuity filed after the expiry of the periods specified in rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1972 shall also be entertained by the Employer, if the applicant adduces sufficient cause for the delay in preferring his claim.
e) As provided under rule 7(5) of the Rules, 1972, no claim for the gratuity under the Act, 1972 shall be invalid merely because the claimant has failed to present his application within the specified period.
f) In terms of Rule-8(1) under Rules, 1972, within fifteen days of the receipt of an application under rule 7 for payment of gratuity, the Employer shall, if the claim is found admissible on verification, issue a notice in Form 'L' to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the amount of gratuity payable and fixing a date, not being later than the thirtieth day after the date of receipt of the application, for payment thereof.
g) As provided under rule 8(1) (ii) of the Rules, 1972, if the claim for gratuity is not found admissible, the Employer is to issue a notice in Form 'M' to the applicant employee, nominee or W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 24 of 37 legal heir, as the case may be, specifying the reasons as to why the claim for gratuity is not considered admissible. In either case, where the gratuity claimed is admissible or inadmissible, a copy of the notice in Form 'L' or 'M' given to the applicant shall be endorsed to the Controlling Authority.
h) An Employer cannot simply issue notice in Form-M to the employee rejecting claim for payment of gratuity. If the Employer so desires to forfeit the gratuity, a Show Cause Notice has to be given, because the gratuity amount to which the Employee is otherwise entitled is to be forfeited, which is a drastic consequence for the Employee concerned.
i) As provided under rule 10(1)(iii) of the Rules, 1972, if pursuant to the application filed in terms of rule 7 of Rules, 1972 a notice is given under rule 8(1) either specifying an amount of gratuity which is considered by the application less than what is payable or rejecting his/her eligibility for payment of gratuity or the Employer fails to issue any notice as required under rule 8 within the time specified therein, the claimant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, may, within ninety days of the occurrence of the cause for the application, apply in Form 'N' to the Controlling Authority for issuing a direction under section 7(4) of the Act, 1972 with as many extra copies as are the opposite parties.
j) In view of the provisions enshrined under section 7(2) of the Act, 1972, as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the Employer shall, whether an application referred to in sub-
section (1) has been made or not, determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also the Controlling Authority, specifying the amount of gratuity so determined.
k) As prescribed under section 7(3) of the Act, 1972, the Employer shall arrange to pay the W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 25 of 37 amount of gratuity, within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to the person to whom the gratuity is payable.
l) In terms of section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972, if the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the Employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the Employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify (As per the notification dated 10.10.1987 issued by the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3-A) of section 7 of the P.G. Act, 1972, 10% interest is payable).
m) In view of the proviso under section 7(3-A) of the Act, 1972, no such interest is payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the Employer has obtained permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payment on the said ground.
n) As prescribed under section 7(4)(a) of the Act, 1972, if there is any dispute as to the amount of gratuity payable to an employee under the said Act or as to the admissibility of any claim of, or in relation to, an employee for payment of gratuity, or as to the person entitled to receive the gratuity, the Employer shall deposit with the Controlling Authority such amount as he admits to be payable by him as gratuity.
o) Where there is a dispute with regard to any matter or matters specified in clause (a), the Employer or employee or any other person raising the dispute may make an application to the Controlling Authority for deciding the dispute, in terms of section 7(4)(b) of the Act, 1972.
W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 26 of 37
p) As provided under section 7(4)(c) of the Act, 1972, the Controlling Authority shall, after due inquiry and after giving the parties to the dispute a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the matter or matters in dispute and if, as a result of such inquiry any amount is found to be payable to the employee, the Controlling Authority shall direct the Employer to pay such amount or, as the case may be, such amount as reduced by the amount already deposited by the Employer.
q) As provided in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Act, 1972, the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the Employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused.
r) As per the settled position of law, as detailed above, before forfeiting the gratuity of an employee in terms of clause (1) of sub-
section 6 of section 4 of the Act, 1972, any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the Employer has to be quantified by the Employer.
s) Similarly, as prescribed in clause (b) of sub- section 6 of section 4 of the Act, 1972, the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited, if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in course of his employment.
t) As held by the apex Court in Union Bank of India (supra), under sub-section (6)(b)(ii) of section 4 of the Act, forfeiture of gratuity is permissible if the termination of an employee is for any misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and the employee W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 27 of 37 concerned is convicted accordingly by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is not for the Employer to decide whether the offence has been committed amounting to involving moral turpitude.
u) As held in Rabindranath Choubey (supra), if departmental proceeding has been initiated against an employee before his retirement, if the service rules of the Employer provide so, the departmental proceeding can continue even after retirement of an employee and if the employee is found guilty, minor or major punishment, including the punishment of dismissal can be imposed by the Employer, even the employee has retired.
v) As was further held by the apex Court in Rabindranath Choubey (supra), the enquiry proceeding has to be concluded first on merit and after passing appropriate order in accordance with law, thereafter necessary consequences as per section 4 of the Act, 1972, more particularly sub-section (6) of section-4 of the Act, 1972 and the Rules of the Employer shall to follow. The recovery, as provided under section-4(6) of the Act, 1972, is in addition to a punishment that can be imposed on an employee after his superannuation."
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Sharat Chandra Lenka (supra) held as follows:
"27. Since the petitioner has not been terminated from service but has been superannuated, Section 4(6)(a)(b) of the Act is not applicable against him for the recovery of the loss from his gratuity. On the whole, withholding of his entitlement to the gratuity, CPF and unutilized leave salary as detailed in Annexure-1 being de hors to the provisions of law is liable to be quashed. At the same time, the order of recovery of Rs.11,71,840/- being also W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 28 of 37 contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Regulation of the Corporation as discussed hereinabove are also liable to be quashed. On the whole, the Office Order vide Annexure-1 being illegal, invalid is hereby quashed and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months failing which the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 shall pay such amount with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of superannuation till the date of payment.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed".
(Emphasis supplied)
18. The High Court of Bombay in Rajinder Kumar Nangia (supra) held as follows:
"4. It would be seen that Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years. The termination of the employment may be on superannuation or on retirement or resignation or death or disablement due to accident or disease of the employee. Thus, an employee becomes entitled to payment of gratuity under the statute. Sub- section (6) is an exception to Sub-section (1) and makes a provision of forfeiture of the gratuity wholly or partially in the circumstances mentioned therein. According to Sub- section (6), gratuity of an employee may be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss caused to the employer if service of that employee has been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence on that ground. The gratuity payable to an employee may also be forfeited wholly or partially if the service of such employee has been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or service of such employee has been terminated for any act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude. Though a criminal case was registered against the petitioner by CBI in the year 1993, the fact is petitioner's services have been terminated simpliciter on his superannuation and not for any of the grounds mentioned under Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. As a matter of fact, admittedly till petitioner's superannuation and even till date no departmental proceedings of misconduct have been initiated against the petitioner. In this backdrop of W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 29 of 37 facts, it was not open to the respondents to refuse to release the gratuity amount to the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for respondents heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. 1993 LLJ 962 in support of his contention that gratuity can be withheld by the employer respondents if any judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner relating to his misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. We are afraid the judgment of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh (supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case before us. The Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra) was concerned with the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in the light of the specific Rules 3, 9, 69(1)(c), 71 and 73 held that there was nothing wrong in the order of the President in withholding the gratuity of the employee. In the present case, none of the Rules under consideration before the Apex Court or the similar Rules are applicable but the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and as per Section 4(1) petitioner has a statutory right to receive gratuity from his employer save and except in the circumstances provided under Sub-section (6) of Section 4. We have already indicated that none of the circumstances provided in Sub- section (6) is applicable in the present case and, therefore, we do not find any justifiable cause on the part of the respondents in withholding the gratuity. Mere pendency of a criminal case lodged by CBI shall not disentitle the petitioner from receiving gratuity nor shall entitle the respondents to not to release the gratuity to the petitioner as petitioner's services came to an end on his attaining superannuation simpliciter. We may note here that Rule 45 of the RCF Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1993 does provide for departmental action against retired employees. Clause (iii) of Rule 45 provides that in case of an officer who had already retired on superannuation before instituting any departmental proceedings and who has received all retiral benefits, as far as possible only criminal prosecution can be recommended against him. Even under Clause (ii) of Rule 45, it appears that now no departmental action can be initiated against the present petitioner as it provides that if departmental proceedings had not been instituted while the officer was in service, proceedings under Rule 38 for imposition of major penalties can be initiated only by or sanction of the Board of Directors and in respect of a W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 30 of 37 cause of action which arose or in respect of an offence which took place not earlier than four years before the institution of the-proceedings. The petitioner was superannuated in the year 1994: the criminal case was registered against him in the year 1993 before his superannuation but till date I.e. more than seven years of his superannuation, no departmental action has been Initiated and, therefore, such action has become beyond time provided in clause (ii) of Rule 45 of the RCF Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1993.
6. For all these reasons, we are satisfied that the decision taken by respondents to not to release payment of gratuity to the petitioner cannot be sustained".
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. So far as imposing 10% interest by the Controlling Authority, the Supreme Court in H. Gangahanume Gowda (supra), held as follows.
"7. It is evident from Section 7(2) that as soon as gratuity becomes payable, the employer, whether any application has been made or not, is obliged to determine the amount of gratuity and give notice in writing to the person to whom the gratuity is payable and also to the controlling authority specifying the amount of gratuity. Under Section 7(3), the employer shall arrange to pay the amount of gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. Under sub-section (3-A) of Section 7, if the amount of gratuity is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), he shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long- term deposits; provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. From the provisions made in Section 7, a clear command can be seen mandating the employer to pay the gratuity within the specified time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. No discretion is available to exempt or relieve the employer from payment of gratuity with or without interest as the case may be. However, W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 31 of 37 under the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no interest shall be payable if delay in payment of gratuity is due to the fault of the employee and further condition that the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. Under Section 8, provision is made for recovery of gratuity payable under the Act, if not paid by the employer within the prescribed time. The Collector shall recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest thereon as arrears of land revenue and pay the same to the person entitled. A penal provision is also made in Section 9 for non- payment of gratuity. Payment of gratuity with or without interest, as the case may be, does not lie in the domain of discretion but it is a statutory compulsion. Specific benefits expressly given in a social beneficial legislation cannot be ordinarily denied. Employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest was the view taken in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair¹. Earlier there was no provision for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. Sub-section (3-A) was added to Section 7 by an amendment, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1987. In the case of Charan Singh v. Birla Textiles this aspect was noticed in the following words: (SCC pp. 214-15, para 4) "4. There was no provision in the Act for payment of interest when the same was quantified by the controlling authority and before the Collector was approached for its realization. In fact, it is on the acceptance of the position that there was a lacuna in the law that Act 22 of 1987 brought about the incorporation of sub-section (3-A) in Section 7. That provision has prospective application".
9. It is clear from what is extracted above from the order of the learned Single Judge that interest on delayed payment of gratuity was denied only on the ground that there was doubt whether the appellant was entitled to gratuity, cash equivalent to leave etc., in view of divergent opinion of the courts during the pendency of enquiry. The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant was entitled to payment of gratuity was not right in denying the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity having due regard to Section 7(3-A) of the Act. It was not the case of the respondent that the delay in the payment of gratuity was due to the fault of the employee and that it had obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on that ground. As noticed above, there is a clear mandate in the provisions W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 32 of 37 of Section 7 to the employer for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. There is also provision to recover the amount of gratuity with compound interest in case the amount of gratuity payable was not paid by the employer in terms of Section 8 of the Act. Since the employer did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the proviso to Section 7(3-A), no discretion was left to deny the interest to the appellant on belated payment of gratuity. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court, having found that the appellant was entitled to interest, declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge as regards the claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity only on the ground that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge could not be said to be arbitrary. In the first place in the light of what is stated above, the learned Single Judge could not refuse the grant of interest exercising discretion as against the mandatory provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. The Division Bench, in our opinion, committed an error in assuming that the learned Single Judge could exercise the discretion in the matter of awarding interest and that such a discretion exercised was not arbitrary".
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Similarly, this Court in Abhay Kumar Samantray (supra), referring to the notification made by the Central Government dated 01.10.1987 in terms of sub-section (3-A) of section 7 of the Act, 1972, held as follows:
"22. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Controlling Authority under P.G. Act-Cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack, was justified to take into consideration the total period of service of the Opposite Party from the date of his initial engagement (14.11.1991) till the date of his superannuation (31.03.2018), so also award 10% simple interest on the awarded amount for the delayed period, so also ordering to pay further simple interest @ 10% per annum till the payment is made, if the Petitioner-Corporation fails to deposit the said ordered amount within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment".
(Emphasis supplied) W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 33 of 37
21. In Calcutta Dock Labour Board (supra) the Supreme Court, referring to Section 13, 14 of the Act, 1972, held that section 13 of the Act, 1972 gives total immunity to gratuity from attachment. Paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the said judgment, being relevant, are extracted below:
"5. Reference may now be made to Sections 13 and 14 of the Act which are very relevant.
13. Protection of gratuity - No gratuity payable under this Act shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court.
14. Act to override other enactments, etc.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.
6. We may point out that by Central Act No.25 of 1984 Section 13 has been amended with effect from July 1, 1984, and the amended section reads thus:
No gratuity payable under this Act and no gratuity payable to an employee employed in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop exempted under Section 5 shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue, or criminal court.
In the absence of any notification within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act the amendment is not relevant for consideration. Section 14 has overriding effect and Section 13 gives total immunity to gratuity from attachment. The preamble of the Act clearly indicates the legislative intention that the Act sought to provide a scheme for payment of gratuity to all employees engaged in, inter alia, ports and under this Act gratuity was payable to workers like Md. Safiur Rehman. The gratuity which was payable to him squarely came within the purview of the W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 34 of 37 Act and, therefore, became entitled to immunity under Section 13 thereof".
(Emphasis supplied)
22. It is worthwhile to note here that the Petitioner Bank took a stand before the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal Case No.9 of 2021 that it could not appear before the Controlling Authority, even though it was duly noticed, due to illness of the Law Officer of the Bank on 14.01.2019. But in the Memorandum of Appeal, as at Annexure-8, it has not been explained as to what prevented the Petitioner Bank to take adequate steps thereafter till the ex-parte judgment was passed 13.01.2020, directing the Petitioner Bank to deposit Rs.9,79,054/-.
Contrary to the said stand taken before the Appellate Authority, prior to preferring the Appeal, a stand was taken before this Court in W.P.(C) No.7283 of 2021 that due to official dislocation in the Legal Section of the Bank adequate steps could not be taken in P.G. Case No.07 of 2018 and no Counter could be filed disclosing the outstanding payment lying against the Opposite Party No.4.
Further a new stand has been taken in para-11 of the present Writ Petition that due to some unavoidable circumstances, though the Petitioner bank was duly noticed by the Controlling Authority, it could not appear before the said Authority, for which W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 35 of 37 it was set ex-parte. Even though its a Certiorari proceeding, new facts have been pleaded for the first time in the Writ Petition and documents have been appended to the Writ Petition as annexures, though the said facts were never pleaded before the Appellate Authority and no such documents were appended to the Memorandum of Appeal, which is not permissible under law.
23. That apart, though a prayer has been made to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority in P.G. Appeal Case No.09 of 2021, there is no such prayer in the Writ Petition to set aside the judgment dated 13.01.2020 passed by the Controlling Authority in P.G. Case No.07 of 2018.
24. However, in view of the discussions made above so also settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority has passed a well discussed and reasoned order dealing with all the points raised in the Appeal and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act, 1972.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit. No order as to cost.
26. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the interim order dated 28.07.2022 passed in I.A. No.4973 of 2022, which stood extended from time to time, stands vacated. W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 36 of 37
27. The Authority concerned is at liberty to release the deposited amount in favour of the Opposite Party No.4.
................................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th October, 2024/Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 20-Oct-2024 12:17:44 W.P.(C) No.9496 of 2022 Page 37 of 37