Kerala High Court
Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd vs N.R.Ramachandran on 16 January, 2012
Author: C.N. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/26TH POUSHA 1933
WA.No. 1581 of 2011
--------------------
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
------------
DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD,
CORPORATE OFFICE,THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ASST.GENERAL MANAGER(HRD)
BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
--------------
1. N.R.RAMACHANDRAN,
S/O.SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN IYER, SAKTHY NIVAS
31/8 VISWARAYYA STREET-1, K.K.PUDUR,SAIBABACOLONY
COIMBATORE-38
2. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, KOCHI.
R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 1581 of 2011
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THE APPELLANT
BEFORE THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ
----------------------------------------------------
W.A No. 1581 of 2011
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2012
J U D G M E N T
C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J Heard the Standing Counsel for the appellant Bank and also Sri. Deepak who appears for first respondent. The first respondent was dismissed from appellant's Bank for irregularities which stands confirmed and there is no controversy on the same. However, the Bank treated the dismissal as sufficient ground to deny payment of gratuity to respondent. When this was questioned even though the original authority upheld the bank's claim, the appellate authority held that under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the bank ought to have passed proceedings denying gratuity after notice and after hearing the respondents. On account of procedural lapses the appellant was ordered to pay gratuity against which writ petition filed was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge the writ appeal is filed by the appellant. W.A No.1581/2011 : 2 :
2. After hearing both sides, what we feel is that even though the irregularities committed by the respondents are serious enough to even deprive the petitioner of gratuity besides dismissal, we notice that he had 25 years of service prior to the alleged irregularities and during the said service there was no complaint against him. The irregularities did not lead to any loss to the Bank, in as much as respondents made up the entire loss by restoring the gold articles to the Bank. So much so, we feel gratuity should not be declined to the respondent. However, we do not find any justification for respondent to claim interest on account of belated claim and payment of gratuity under orders of the appellate authority confirmed by this Court. Gratuity itself happened to be declined to the respondent on account of his dismissal from service. We therefore, allow the writ appeal in part by sustaining directions of the appellate authority to pay gratuity to the respondent. However, since there is no justification to claim interest we vacate the findings of the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge with regard to the payment of interest on the gratuity amounts. However, Bank should pay interest from the date of making application for payment of W.A No.1581/2011 : 3 : gratuity. So far as Bank's liability for gratuity is concerned it is based on last drawn wages of which there is a controversy. We do not think there can be any scope for controversy because last drawn wage is borne out on the record of the Bank and it is for the Bank to verify the documents and pay gratuity based on the same. If respondent has any doubt about last drawn wages the Bank should allow him to verify the Bank records so that unnecessary controversy on factual position should not lead to another round of litigation. Appellant is directed to pay the amounts of gratuity due and eligible interest as stated above within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge) Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN (Judge) jma //True copy// P.A to Judge