Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On or about 14.7.78, Internal circular was published inviting applications from the internal officers. In the said circular, it was categorically stated that the selected officers would have to resign from their present services and join as fresh recruits and during such probation no contribution to provident fund would be made. It was further stipulated that consequent upon such resignation, the accumulated leave would also lapse and provident fund and gratuity would be paid according to rules. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said internal circular dated 14.7.78, the petitioner amongst others applied for appointment to the post of Industrial Relation Officer. He was interviewed and selected. On or about 1.7.79, Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulation, 1979, was made by the bank in terms of the aforementioned power read with section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. In terms of Rule 20(2). an officer cannot resign from service of the bank otherwise than expiry of 3 months from the service of the bank of a notice in writing of such resignation. Regulation 45 deals with provident fund of officers of Bank of India and by the Note appended thereto, existing Bank of India Provident Fund Rules were made part of the regulation. Regulation 46 deals with gratuity of officers of Bank of India, and in terms of the Note appended thereto, existing Bank of India Gratuity Fund Rules were made part of the regulations.

7. Mr. Mukherji appearing on behalf of respondent, on the other hand, submitted that from a perusal of the various rules of Bank of India Gratuity Fund Rules, it would appear that the same are statutory in nature, particularly in view of the fact that the said rules had been adopted by reason of Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulation. Learned counsel contended that in view of the aforementioned adoption of the rules by reason of a statutory rule, gratuity rules became a part of the Service Regulation, and thus, the rules are statutory in nature. Learned counsel further submitted that as in terms of the aforementioned regulation procedures have been laid down for valid resignation and in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was made to sign on the dotted line and the same did not comply with the statutory regulations as contained in regulation 20 of the said regulation, the writ petitioner would be deemed to be in continuous service of the appellant bank. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge cannot be said to have committed an error in referring to the provisions of section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, in as much as. explanation appended to Rule 8 of the said Rules would clearly show that the said provisions are in pari materia. It has been pointed out that the writ petitioner has also filed a cross objection, in as much as, the bank apart from releasing a sum of Rs. 38,000/- by way of provident fund, did not find him entitled to the rest of the amount, as in the opinion of the bank, the petitioner did not hold the office continuously for a period of ten years so as to make him eligible for the said amount.

8. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be said to have come within the purview of the definition of 'continuous service' within the meaning of explanation appended to Rule 8 of the Bank of India Gratuity Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Before adverting to the said question, we must observe that the submission of Mr. Sengupta to the effect that this writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that the said rules are not statutory in nature is stated to be rejected, in as much as, as noticed hereinbefore, Mr. Mukherji has rightly submitted that by reason of Regulation 46, the said rules became a part of the Regulations. It has not been, and could not be disputed by the appellants that the Regulations having been framed in terms of the provisions of the Nationalisation Act, were statutory in nature, and in that view of the matter, the authorities framing the said Regulations, could direct that the matter relating to provident fund and gratuity would be covered by the respective provident fund and gratuity fund rules. Such provident fund and gratuity fund rules, therefore, having been made part of the regulations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was maintainable.

14. There cannot be any dispute as regards the aforementioned proposition, but the said decision cannot be said to have any application in the instant case, in as much as, we are concerned herein with the question as to whether the petitioner completed 10 years continuous service, or not. In D.V. Jakatt & Ors. v. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 1982 Lab 1C NOC 53, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court was dealing with the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act. While considering with the function of employee as contained in section 2(9) of the said Act, the Division Bench held for the purpose of the said decision that it is not necessary that all the employees must b'e working on the floor of the factory, and thus even persons doing something Incidental to or preliminary to or connected with the work of factory would also be employees. In Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v, Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., , the court was concerned as to whether clause (1) of Rule 9 of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 is violatlve of section 23 of the Contract Act, being opposed to public policy and is also ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in terms whereof of Corporation had an absolute right to terminate services of permanent employees by giving him 3 months' notice in writing or by paying him the equivalent of three months' basic pay and dearness allowance in lieu of such notice. The apex court held that such a provision is wholly unreasonable. In the Instant case, we are not concerned with the vires of any such provision, nor any such question has been raised in the writ application or before us. In Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxml Vishnu Textile Mills, , the apex court while Interpreting the definition of continuous service as contained in section 2(c) of Payment of Gratuity Act, held that the same is a wide one. It was further held that Payment of Gratuity Act being a social welfare legislation, in construing the provisions thereof, rule of beneficial construction should be adopted. However, in that case, the apex court was concerned with the case of a Badli worker, who although did not come within the purview of the substantive provision of the definition of continuous service as contained in section 2(c) of the said Act read with section 2A thereof, but came within the purview of Explanation appended thereto. A bare perusal of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and Rule 8 including the proviso appended thereto, would clearly show that no such explanation had been appended in rule 8 of the Gratuity Rules. It is now a well settled principles of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little or additional fact may make a lot of difference in arlving at the final conclusion.