LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, December 17, 2012

Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, that an employee has the right to make a choice of being governed by some alternative provision/instrument, other than the Gratuity Act, for drawing the benefit of gratuity. If an employee makes such a choice, he is provided with a statutory protection, namely, that the concerned employee would be entitled to receive better terms of gratuity under the said provision/instrument, in comparison to his entitlement under the Gratuity Act. This protection has been provided through Section 4 (5) of the Gratuity Act. Furthermore, from the mandate of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, it is imperative to further conclude, that the provisions of the Gratuity Act would have overriding effect, with reference to any inconsistency therewith in any other provision or instrument. Thus viewed, even if the provisions of the 1995, Regulations, had debarred payment of interest on account of delayed payment of gratuity, the same would have been inconsequential. The benefit of interest enuring to an employee, as has been contemplated under section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act, cannot be denied to an employee, whose gratuity is regulated by some provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act. This is so because, the terms of payment of gratuity under the alternative instrument has to ensure better terms, than the ones provided under the Gratuity Act. The effect would be the same, when the concerned provision is silent on the issue. This is so, because the instant situation is not worse than the one discussed above, where there is a provision expressly debarring payment of interest in the manner contemplated under Section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act. Therefore, even though the 1995, Regulations, are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the appellant would still be entitled to the benefit of Section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act. If such benefit is not extended to the appellant, the protection contemplated under section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act would stand defeated. Likewise, even the mandate contained in section 14 of the Gratuity Act, deliberated in detail hereinabove, would stand negated. We, therefore, have no hesitation in concluding, that even though the provisions of the 1995, Regulations, are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the least that the appellant would be entitled to, are terms equal to the benefits envisaged under the Gratuity Act. Under the Gratuity Act, the appellant would be entitled to interest, on account of delayed payment of gratuity (as has already been concluded above). We therefore hold, that the appellant herein is entitled to interest on account of delayed payment, in consonance with sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act. We, accordingly, direct the PNB to pay to the appellant, interest at “…the rate notified by the Central Government for repayment of long term deposits…”. In case no such notification has been issued, we are of the view, that the appellant would be entitled to interest, as was awarded to him by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 4.5.2011, i.e., interest at the rate of 8%. The PNB is directed, to pay the aforesaid interest to the appellant, within one month of the appellant’s furnishing to the PNB a certified copy of the instant order. The appellant shall also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-, for having had to incur expenses before the Writ Court, before the Division Bench, and finally before this Court. The aforesaid costs shall also be disbursed to the appellant within the time indicated hereinabove.


                                                                “REPORTABLE”

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.9087  OF 2012
                (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.14570 of 2012)


Y.K. Singla                                        …. Appellant

                                   Versus

Punjab National Bank & Ors.                        …. Respondents


                                  O R D E R


JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellant was inducted into the service  of  the  Punjab  National
Bank (hereinafter referred  to  as,  the  PNB)  in  the  clerical  cadre  on
19.2.1958.  He was  successively  promoted  against  the  posts  of  Special
Assistant and Accountant with effect  from  23.8.1972  and  26.12.1974.   He
also gained  further  promotions  to  the  cadres  of  Manager-B  Grade  and
thereafter, Manager-A Grade  with  effect  from  24.11.1977  and  18.12.1982
respectively.  He finally came to be promoted to the post of  Chief  Manager
with effect from 1.10.1986.  Whilst holding the post of Chief  Manager,  the
appellant retired from service, on attaining the age  of  superannuation  on
31.10.1996.

3.    During 1981-1982, when the appellant was  posted  as  Manager  at  the
Sector 19, Chandigarh Branch of the PNB, he was accused  of  having  entered
into a conspiracy with R.L. Vaid, the then  Regional  Manager  of  the  PNB,
Chandigarh, and Dr. A.K. Sinha, IAS, the then Secretary, Department of  Town
and  Country  Planning,  Haryana  and  thereby,   of   fraudulently   having
sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,70,000/- to Mrs. Rama  Sinha  (wife  of  Dr.  A.K.
Sinha, aforementioned).  The said loan was granted to  Mrs.Rama  Sinha,  for
construction of a building on a plot  in  Sector  6,  Panchkula.   The  said
building, after its construction, was leased to the  PNB,  at  an  allegedly
exorbitant rent of Rs.4,985/-  per  month.   The  loan  amount,  was  to  be
adjusted out of the rent account.  The PNB was allegedly, not  in  the  need
of the said building, because it was already housed in a building in  Sector
17, Chandigarh, at a nominal rent of Rs.1,650/-  per  month.   The  building
rented from Mrs. Rama Sinha was  said  to  have   remained  unoccupied  from
1.5.1982  to  21.1.1987.   This  factual  position,  it  was  alleged,   was
sufficient to infer, that the PNB was not in need of the building  taken  on
rent from Mrs.Rama Sinha.  Based on the aforesaid factual position,  it  was
felt, that the action  of  the  conspirators  caused  a  pecuniary  loss  of
Rs.2,70,000/- to the PNB.  It was  also  sought  to  be  assumed,  that  the
aforesaid loan and lease were favours  extended  to  Dr.  A.K.  Sinha,  IAS,
through his wife Mrs. Rama Sinha.  Based on the aforesaid  allegations,  the
appellant Y.K. Singla, the aforesaid R.L. Vaid  and  Dr.  A.K.  Sinha,  IAS,
were charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code  and  Section  5(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.



4.    The trial in the above matter was conducted by the Special Judge,  CBI
Court, Chandigarh.  On the conclusion of the trial, the Special  Judge,  CBI
Court, Chandigarh arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  the  prosecution  had
failed to produce any evidence on the issue  of  criminal  conspiracy.   The
trial Court accordingly, acquitted all the  three  accused  of  the  charges
framed against them on 31.10.2009, by  holding,  that  the  prosecution  had
failed to establish the charges beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.

5.     During the subsistence of the  aforesaid  criminal  proceedings,  the
appellant Y.K. Singla retired from the employment  of  the  PNB,  on  having
attained the age of superannuation, on 31.10.1996.  On  his  retirement,  on
account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings being conducted  against
him, gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of  permissible  portion  of
pension,   were  withheld.   While  withholding   the   aforesaid   monetary
benefits, the appellant was informed by  the  PNB  through  a  communication
dated  13.5.2000,  that  the  eventual  release  of  the  aforesaid  retiral
benefits, would depend on the outcome of the pending criminal proceedings.

6.    As already noticed above, the appellant was acquitted of  the  charges
framed against  him,  by  the  Special  Judge,  CBI  Court,  Chandigarh,  on
31.10.2009.  Based on his aforesaid acquittal,  the  appellant  addressed  a
letter dated 26.11.2009  to  the  Executive  Director  of  the  PNB  seeking
release  of  his  gratuity,  encashment  of  privileged  leave  balance  and
commutation of permissible portion of  pension.   Additionally,  he  claimed
interest, from the date the aforesaid retiral benefits became  due  to  him,
till the actual payment thereof.  It will also be relevant to mention,  that
by this time, the appellant was over 73  years  old.   In  its  reply  dated
5.2.2010, the PNB  informed  the  appellant,  that  it  had  released  leave
encashment of Rs.1,28,716.24 on that day itself i.e.,  on  5.2.2010  itself.
The appellant was also informed through the aforesaid communication, that  a
duly sanctioned gratuity proposal had been sent to the  Provident  Fund  and
Pension Department of the PNB, for  disbursement  of  gratuity.   Thereupon,
the appellant actually received the gratuity payable to him, on 12.2.2010.

7.    Having received encashment  of  privileged  leave  balance,  as  also,
gratuity  in  February,  2010,  the  appellant  reiterated  his  claim   for
interest, on account of delayed payment of the  aforesaid  amounts,  through
another letter dated  17.2.2010.   In  the  instant  letter,  the  appellant
pointed out, that he had retired on attaining the age of  superannuation  on
31.10.1996, and as  such,  the  PNB  had  withheld  the  aforesaid  monetary
benefits due to him for a period of more  than  13  years  up  to  February,
2010.  The  appellant’s  request  for  interest  on  the  aforesaid  delayed
payments, was responded to by the PNB  through  a  letter  dated  12.3.2010.
The appellant was informed, that he was entitled to interest on  account  of
withholding of his retiral benefits, only  with  effect  from  the  date  of
culmination of the  proceedings  pending  against  him.   Having  found  the
appellant entitled to interest with effect from 31.10.2009  i.e.,  when  the
Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh acquitted him, the PNB released  a  sum
of Rs.1,881/- as interest towards delayed payment of leave  encashment,  and
another sum of Rs.3,336/- as interest on  account  of  having  withheld  his
gratuity.  The aforesaid interest, the  appellant  was  informed,  had  been
calculated at the rate of 5.5%.

8.    Dissatisfied with the action of the PNB, in  not  paying  interest  to
him from the  date  the  aforesaid  retiral  benefits  became  due  (on  his
retirement on 31.10.1996), till their eventual release (in February,  2010),
the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition no. 6469 of  2010  before  the  High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter  referred  to  as,  the
High Court).  The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be  allowed  on  4.5.2011.
While allowing the Writ Petition filed by  the  appellant,  the  High  Court
directed the PNB to pay the appellant, interest at the rate of 8%  from  the
date retiral benefits had became due  to  the  appellant,  till  the  actual
payment thereof to him.

9.    Dissatisfied with the order dated  4.5.2011,  passed  by  the  learned
Single Judge of the High Court, the PNB preferred Letters Patent Appeal  no.
1950 of 2011.  The Letters  Patent  Appeal  filed  by  the  PNB  was  partly
allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court, on 29.11.2011.  The  Division
Bench of the High Court arrived at the conclusion, that  the  appellant  was
not entitled to any interest on delayed payment of Gratuity.   The award  of
interest to the appellant for withholding the other  retiral  benefits  was,
however, not interfered with.  The decision (dated 29.11.2011)  rendered  by
the Division Bench of the High Court, has been assailed  by  the  appellant,
through the instant appeal.

10.   The reasons which prompted the Division Bench of  the  High  Court  to
deny interest on the withheld amount  of  gratuity  to  the  appellant,  are
ascertainable from the paragraph 7 of the impugned  order,  which  is  being
extracted hereunder:-

      “7.   On having considered the matter, we are in  agreement  with  the
           submission  made  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
           appellant-Bank insofar as withholding of gratuity is  concerned.
           The language of the relevant Rule i.e. Rule 46 of the 1995 Rules
           is clear and unambiguous.  The mandate of the Rule is such  that
           it operates as a bar  insofar  as  the  Bank  is  concerned,  as
           regards the release of gratuity to an employee against whom  the
           departmental or judicial proceedings were pending  on  the  date
           such employee attains  the  age  of  superannuation.   The  Rule
           stipulates that such withheld amount of  gratuity  would  become
           payable only upon conclusion of  the  proceedings.   Admittedly,
           judicial proceedings were pending against the respondent on  the
           date of his superannuation i.e. 31.10.1996  and  concluded  only
           upon his acquittal vide order dated 31.10.2009.  The amount viz.
           gratuity has since  been  released  on  13.2.2010  and  interest
           thereupon has also been paid for the period 31.10.2009 till  the
           date of payment.  We, accordingly, hold that respondent no. 1 is
           not entitled to any interest for the period 31.10.1996 till  the
           conclusion of the trial and his acquittal i.e. 31.10.2009 on the
           withheld amount of gratuity.”

11.   It is apparent from a perusal of the reasoning recorded  by  the  High
Court, that the High Court relied upon Regulation 46 of the Punjab  National
Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as,  the
1995 Regulations).  Regulation 46 is being extracted hereunder:-

      “46.  Provisional Pension
           (1)   An employee who  has  retired  on  attaining  the  age  of
                 superannuation  or   otherwise   and   against   whom   any
                 departmental or  judicial  proceedings  are  instituted  or
                 where departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional
                 pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have been
                 admissible to him, would be allowed subject  to  adjustment
                 against final retirement benefits sanctioned to  him,  upon
                 conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made
                 where the pension  finally  sanctioned  is  less  than  the
                 provisional pension or the pension is reduced  or  withheld
                 etc. either permanently or for a specified period.

           (2)   In such cases the gratuity shall not be paid  to  such  an
                 employee until the conclusion of  the  proceedings  against
                 him.  The gratuity shall be paid to him  on  conclusion  of
                 the proceedings subject to the decision of the proceedings.
                  Any recoveries to  be  made  from  an  employee  shall  be
                 adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable.”
                                                   (emphasis is ours)

Having perused Regulation 46(2), we are of the view,  that  the  High  Court
was fully justified in concluding, that it was open to the PNB  not  to  pay
to the appellant gratuity, till the culmination of the  proceedings  pending
against him.  It is, therefore, apparent, that non-release  of  gratuity  to
the  appellant  after  31.10.1996  (when  the  appellant  retired  from  his
employment, with the PNB), till his acquittal  by  the  Special  Judge,  CBI
Court, Chandigarh, on 31.10.2009, cannot be faulted.

12.   The right to withhold gratuity, is an  issue  separate  and  distinct,
from the claim of interest, which has been raised  by  the  appellant.   The
question that  arises  for  consideration  is,  whether  an  employee  whose
gratuity has been withheld under Regulation 46(2) of the  1995  Regulations,
would he be entitled to interest on the withheld payment of gratuity, if  he
is found not to  be  at  fault?   According  to  the  simple  logic  of  the
appellant, since his gratuity was withheld from 1996 (when he  retired  from
service) till 2010 (when gratuity was eventually  released  to  him),  i.e.,
for a period of 14 years, for  no  fault  of  his,  he  is  most  definitely
entitled to interest on the delayed  payment.   It  is,  however,   not  the
simple logic of the appellant,  which  will  determine  the  controversy  in
hand.  For, logic gave rise to diametrically opposite views,  one  of  which
was expressed by the Writ Court, and the other by the Letters Patent  Bench.
 We shall therefore endeavour to search for a legal answer, to the issue  in
hand.

13.   The 1995, Regulations, are silent on  the  subject  of  an  employee’s
rights whose gratuity has been withheld, even in circumstances where it  has
eventually been concluded, that he was not at fault.  This  is  exactly  the
situation in the present controversy, inasmuch as, the  appellant’s  retiral
benefits including gratuity, were withheld on 31.10.1996 when he retired  on
attaining the age of superannuation.   The  aforesaid  withholding,  was  on
account  of  a  pending  criminal  proceeding.  The  said  withholding   has
appropriately been considered as valid, under Regulation 46(2) of the  1995,
Regulation.  But the appellant was acquitted from the  criminal  prosecution
initiated  against  him  on  31.10.2009.   As  such,  it  is  inevitable  to
conclude, that his gratuity was withheld  without  the  appellant  being  at
fault.  It is  in  the  aforesaid  background,  that  we  shall  venture  to
determine the claim of the appellant for interest, despite  the  PNB  having
validly  withheld  his  gratuity  under  Regulation  46(2)  of   the   1995,
Regulations.

14.   Insofar as the issue in hand is concerned, reference needs to be  made
to certain provisions of the Payment  of  Gratuity  Act,  1972  (hereinafter
referred to as, the Gratuity Act).  In our considered view,  Sections  4,  7
and 14 of the Gratuity Act are  relevant.   Section  4  is  being  extracted
hereunder:-
      “4.   Payment of gratuity -

                 (1)   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,--

                       (a)   on his superannuation, or
                       (b)   on his retirement or resignation, or
                       (c)   on his death or disablement due to accident  or
                            disease:

                       Provided that the 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:


                       Provided further that in the case  of  death  of  the
                       employee, gratuity payable to him shall  be  paid  to
                       his nominee or, if no nomination has  been  made,  to
                       his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is  a
                       minor, the share of such minor,  shall  be  deposited
                       with the controlling authority who shall  invest  the
                       same for the benefit of such minor in  such  bank  or
                       other financial institution, as  may  be  prescribed,
                       until such minor attains majority.


                       Explanation -  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,
                       disablement means such disablement  as  incapacitates
                       an employee for the work  which  he  was  capable  of
                       performing before the accident or  disease  resulting
                       in such disablement.


                 (2)   For every completed year of service or  part  thereof
                       in excess of  six  months,  the  employer  shall  pay
                       gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen  days'
                       wages based on the rate of wages last  drawn  by  the
                       employee concerned:


                       Provided that in the case of a piece-rated  employee,
                       daily wages shall be computed on the average  of  the
                       total wages received by him for  a  period  of  three
                       months immediately preceding the termination  of  his
                       employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for
                       any overtime work shall not be taken into account:


                       Provided further that in the case of an employee  who
                       is employed in a seasonal establishment  and  who  is
                       not so employed throughout  the  year,  the  employer
                       shall pay the gratuity at the  rate  of  seven  days'
                       wages for each season.


                       Explanation.--  In  the  case  of  a  monthly   rated
                       employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated
                       by dividing the monthly rate of wages last  drawn  by
                       him by twenty-six and  multiplying  the  quotient  by
                       fifteen.

                 (3)   The amount of gratuity payable to an  employee  shall
                       not exceed one lakh rupees.

                 (4)   For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable  to
                       an employee who is employed, after  his  disablement,
                       on reduced wages, his wages for the period  preceding
                       his disablement  shall  be  taken  to  be  the  wages
                       received by him during that period, and his wages for
                       the period subsequent to  his  disablement  shall  be
                       taken to be the wages as so reduced.

                 (5)   Nothing in this section shall affect the right of  an
                       employee receive better terms of gratuity  under  any
                       award or agreement or contract with the employer.

                 (6)   Notwithstanding anything contained  in  sub-  section
                       (1), -

                       (a)   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;
                       (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
                                  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.”
                                                   (emphasis is ours)

It is not a matter of dispute, that the appellant was entitled  to  gratuity
when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on  31.10.1996.   The
quantification of the appellant’s gratuity by the PNB  is  not  in  dispute.
As such, sub-sections (1) to (4) of  section  4  of  the  Gratuity  Act  are
clearly not relevant to the present controversy.  Only  sub-section  (5)  of
section 4  is  relevant  in  so  far  as  the  present  case  is  concerned.
Likewise, since the appellant has not been found to be at  any  fault,  sub-
section (6) of section 4 is also not attracted in this case.

15.   Sub-Section (5) of section 4 of the Gratuity Act permits  an  employee
to  be  regulated  for   purpose   of   gratuity,   under   an   alternative
provision/arrangement (award or  agreement  or  contract),  other  than  the
Gratuity Act.  In such an eventuality, sub-section  (5)  aforesaid,  assures
the concerned employee, “…to receive better  terms  of  gratuity  under  any
award or agreement or contract with the employer…”   Since  the  appellant’s
claim for  gratuity  is  regulated,  under  the  1995,  Regulations,  it  is
evident, that his claim for gratuity is liable to be determined by  ensuring
his right to better terms than those contemplated under  the  Gratuity  Act.
In the instant process of consideration, the aforesaid  conclusion,  namely,
that an employee who receives gratuity under a  provision,  other  than  the
Gratuity  Act,  would  be  entitled  to  better  terms  of  gratuity,   will
constitute  one  of  the  foundational  basis,  of  determination.    Having
examined section 4 of the Gratuity Act, we may unhesitatingly  record,  that
none of the other sub-sections of section 4 of the  Gratuity  Act,  as  well
as, the other provisions of the Gratuity Act, have the  effect  of  negating
the conclusion drawn hereinabove.

16.   For the determination of the present controversy, it is also  relevant
to take into consideration Section 7 of the Gratuity  Act,  which  is  being
extracted hereunder:-
      “7.   Determination of the amount of gratuity.-
           (1)   A person who is eligible for  payment  of  gratuity  under
                 this Act or any person authorized, in writing,  to  act  on
                 his  behalf  shall  send  a  written  application  to   the
                 employer, within such time and in  such  form,  as  may  be
                 prescribed, for payment of such gratuity.
           (2)   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 to the  controlling  authority  specifying
                 the amount of gratuity so determined.
           (3)   The employee shall arrange to pay the amount of  gratuity,
                 within thirty days from the date it becomes payable to  the
                 person to whom the gratuity is payable.
           (3A)  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:


                 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  this
                 ground.
           (4)   (a) If there is any dispute as to the amount  of  gratuity
                 payable to  an  employee  under  this  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.
                 (b) Where there is a dispute  with  regard  to  any  matter
                 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.
                 (c) 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.
                 (d)  The  controlling  authority  shall  pay   the   amount
                 deposited including the excess amount, if any, deposited by
                 the employer, to the person entitled thereto.
                 (d) as soon as may be after a deposit is made under  clause
                 (a), the controlling authority shall pay the amount of  the
                 deposit-
                       (i)   to the applicant where he is the employee; or
                       (ii)  where the applicant is not the employee, to the
                            nominee or, as the case may be, the guardian of
                            such nominee or heir of  the  employee  if  the
                            controlling authority is satisfied  that  there
                            is no dispute as to the right of the  applicant
                            to receive the amount of gratuity.
           (5)   For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under sub-section
                 (4), the controlling authority shall have the  same  powers
                 as are vested in a court, while trying a  suit,  under  the
                 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908)  in  respect  of
                 the following matters, namely :-
                 (a)   enforcing the attendance of any person  or  examining
                       him on oath;
                 (b)   requiring the discovery and production of documents;
                 (c)   receiving evidence on affidavits;
                 (d)   issuing commission for the examination of witnesses.
           (6)   Any  inquiry  under  this  section  shall  be  a  judicial
                 proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228,  and
                 for the purpose of section 196, of the  Indian  Penal  Code
                 (45 of 1860).
           (7)   Any person aggrieved by an  order  under  sub-section  (4)
                 may, within sixty days from the date of the receipt of  the
                 order, prefer an appeal to the  appropriate  Government  or
                 such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate
                 Government in this behalf:
                 Provided that the appropriate Government or  the  appellate
                 authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that
                 the  appellant  was  prevented  by  sufficient  cause  from
                 preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days,
                 extend the said period by a further period of sixty days:
                 Provided further that no appeal by  an  employer  shall  be
                 admitted unless at the time of preferring the  appeal,  the
                 appellant either produces a certificate of the  controlling
                 authority to the effect that the  appellant  has  deposited
                 with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required
                 to be deposited under sub-Section (4), or deposits with the
                 appellate authority such amount.

           (8)   The appropriate Government or the appellate authority,  as
                 the case may be, may,  after  giving  the  parties  to  the
                 appeal a reasonable opportunity of  being  heard,  confirm,
                 modify  or  reverse  the  decision   of   the   controlling
                 authority.”
                                        (emphasis is ours)

A perusal of sub-Section (2) of Section 7 reveals, that it  is  the  onerous
responsibility of the employer, to determine the amount of gratuity  payable
to a retiring employee.  Sub-Section (3) of  Section  7  enjoins  a  further
responsibility on the employer, to disburse the amount of  gratuity  payable
to an employee, within 30 days from the date it becomes payable.  Since  the
appellant had attained the  age  of  superannuation  on  31.10.1996,  it  is
apparent,  that  gratuity  had  become  payable  to   him   on   31.10.1996.
Accordingly, the same ought to have been calculated in terms of  sub-Section
(2) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, and should have been dispersed to  the
appellant by 30.11.1996 in terms of sub-Section (3)  of  Section  7  of  the
Gratuity Act.

17.   Sub-Section (3A) of  Section  7  of  the  Gratuity  Act  is  the  most
relevant provision for the determination  of  the  present  controversy.   A
perusal of the sub-Section (3A) leaves no room for any doubt, that  in  case
gratuity is not released to an employee within 30 days  from  the  date  the
same become payable under sub-Section (3) of  Section  7,  the  employee  in
question would be entitled to “…simple interest at such rate, not  exceeding
the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for  repayment
of long term loans, as the Government may, by notification specify…”   There
is, however, one exception to the payment of interest envisaged  under  sub-
Section (3) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act.  The  aforesaid  exception  is
provided for in the proviso under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7.  A  perusal
of the said proviso reveals, that no interest  would  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 this ground…”  The exception contemplated in the  proviso
under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity  Act,  incorporates  two
ingredients.  Where the two ingredients contemplated in  the  proviso  under
sub-Section (3A)  are  fulfilled,  the  concerned  employee  can  be  denied
interest despite delayed payment of  gratuity.   Having  carefully  examined
the proviso under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, we  are
of the view, that the first ingredient is, that payment of gratuity  to  the
employee was delayed because of some fault of  the  employee  himself.   The
second ingredient is, that the controlling authority should  have  approved,
such withholding of gratuity (of the concerned employee)  on  the  basis  of
the alleged fault of the employee himself.  None of the  other  sub-sections
of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, would have  the  effect  of  negating  the
conclusion drawn hereinabove.

18.   Insofar as the present controversy is  concerned,  the  appellant  was
accused of having entered into a conspiracy with a  bank  employee  superior
to him, so as to extend unauthorized benefits to  a  member  of  the  Indian
Administrative Services belonging  to  the  Haryana  Cadre.   Based  on  the
aforesaid alleged fault of  the  appellant,  the  PNB,  by  an  order  dated
13.5.2000, informed the appellant,  that  the  release  of  certain  retiral
benefits including gratuity  was  being  withheld,  because  of  pending  of
criminal proceedings against him.  The appellant was also informed,  through
the aforesaid communication, that release of his retiral benefits  including
gratuity, would depend on the outcome of the pending  criminal  proceedings.
It is, therefore apparent, that  the  second  ingredient  expressed  in  the
proviso under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act was  clearly
satisfied, when the competent authority approved the action  of  withholding
the appellant’s gratuity.  The instant conclusion is inevitable, because  it
is not the case of the appellant, that the  communication  dated  13.5.2000,
by which his gratuity was withheld, had not been issued at the  instance  of
the concerned controlling authority.  The only  question  which,  therefore,
arises for consideration  is,  whether  the  first  ingredient  (culled  out
above) for the applicability, of  the  proviso  under  sub-Section  (3A)  of
Section 7 of the Gratuity Act, can be stated to have been satisfied, in  the
facts and circumstances of the instant case.  If it can be  concluded,  that
the aforesaid ingredient is also satisfied,  the  appellant  would  have  no
right  to  claim  interest,  despite  delayed  release  of   gratuity.   Our
determination of the first  ingredient  is,  as  follows.   We  are  of  the
considered view, that consequent upon the acquittal of the appellant by  the
Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh, it would  be  erroneous  to  conclude,
that the  gratuity  payable  to  the  appellant  on  attaining  the  age  of
superannuation i.e., on 31.10.1996, was withheld on account  of  some  fault
of the appellant himself.  We may hasten to add, if the appellant  had  been
convicted by the Special  Judge,  CBI  Court,  Chandigarh,  then  the  first
ingredient would  also  be  deemed  to  have  been  satisfied.   Conversely,
because the appellant has been acquitted, he cannot be held to be at  fault.
 Accordingly it  emerges,  that  the  “fault”  ingredient  of  the  employee
himself,  for   denial   of   gratuity   when   it   became   due,   remains
unsubstantiated.  Since one of the two salient ingredients  of  the  proviso
under sub-Section (3A) of Section 7 of  the  Gratuity  Act  is  clearly  not
satisfied in the present case, we  are  of  the  view,  that  the  appellant
cannot be denied  interest  under  the  proviso  to  section  7(3A)  of  the
Gratuity Act.  Accordingly, the appellant has to be awarded  interest  under
section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act.  Therefore,  if  the  provisions  of  the
Gratuity Act are applicable to the appellant, he would  most  definitely  be
entitled to interest under sub-Section (3A) of Section  7  of  the  Gratuity
Act, on account of delayed payment of gratuity.

19.   The most important question which arises  for  our  consideration  is,
whether  the  provisions  of  the  Gratuity  Act  can  be  extended  to  the
appellant, so as to award him interest under sub-Section (3A) of  Section  7
of the Gratuity Act.  Insofar  as  the  instant  aspect  of  the  matter  is
concerned, it was the vehement contention of the learned  counsel  appearing
on behalf of the appellant, that the provisions  of  the  Gratuity  Act  are
extendable  to  the  appellant,  and  as  such,  he  would  be  entitled  to
disbursement of interest under Section  7(3A)  thereof.   The  plea  at  the
behest of the PNB, however, was to the  contrary.   The  contention  of  the
learned counsel representing the PNB was, that the PNB  having  adopted  the
1995, Regulations, the claim of  the  appellant  could  only  be  determined
under the provisions of the said Regulations.   It  was  pointed  out,  that
denial of payment of gratuity in the present case, was valid  and  justified
under Regulation  46(2)  of  the  1995  Regulations.   Furthermore,  it  was
pointed out, that the 1995 Regulations, did not make any provision  for  the
award of interest in case of delayed payment of gratuity.  Therefore,  since
gratuity had legitimately been withheld, under the provisions of  the  1995,
Regulations, and the payment of gratuity to the appellant is  not  regulated
under the Gratuity Act, there was no question of payment of interest to  the
appellant.   It  was  submitted  that  the  appellant’s  gratuity  had  been
withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings initiated against  him,
his entitlement to  gratuity  stood  extended  to  such  time  as  the  said
criminal  proceedings  were  eventually  disposed  of.   Thus  viewed,   the
entitlement to gratuity stood extended to 31.10.2009 (i.e., the date of  the
disposal of the proceedings pending against him).  In this  behalf,  it  was
also pointed out, that as soon as the criminal proceedings  pending  against
the  appellant,  concluded  in  his  favour,  the  PNB  released   all   the
appellant’s retiral benefits, including gratuity.  The  documents  available
on the record of  the  case  reveal,  that  gratuity  was  released  to  the
appellant on 12.2.2010.  As such, the delay in release of  gratuity,  if  at
all, was only from 31.10.2009  to  12.2.2010.   For  the  aforesaid  delayed
payment  of  gratuity,  the  appellant  was  admittedly   awarded   interest
quantified at Rs.3,336/- (calculated at the rate of 5.5%).

20.   In order to determine which of the two provisions (the  Gratuity  Act,
or the 1995, Regulations) would be applicable for determining the  claim  of
the appellant, it is also essential to refer to Section 14 of  the  Gratuity
Act, which is being extracted hereunder:-


      “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.”
                                                   (emphasis is ours)

A perusal of Section 14 leaves no  room  for  any  doubt,  that  a  superior
status has been vested in the provisions of  the  Gratuity  Act,  vis-à-vis,
any  other  enactment  (including  any   other   instrument   or   contract)
inconsistent  therewith.   Therefore,  insofar  as  the  entitlement  of  an
employee to gratuity is concerned,  it  is  apparent  that  in  cases  where
gratuity of an employee  is  not  regulated  under  the  provisions  of  the
Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority  to  the  provisions
of the Gratuity Act over  all  other  provisions/enactments  (including  any
instrument or contract having the force  of  law),  the  provisions  of  the
Gratuity Act cannot be  ignored.   The  term  “instrument”  and  the  phrase
“instrument or contract having the force of law” shall  most  definitely  be
deemed to include the  1995  Regulations,  which  regulate  the  payment  of
gratuity to the appellant.

21.   Based on the conclusions drawn  hereinabove,  we  shall  endeavour  to
determine the present controversy.  First and foremost,  we  have  concluded
on the basis of
Section 4 of the Gratuity Act,
that  an  employee  has  the
right  to  make  a  choice   of   being   governed   by   some   alternative
provision/instrument, other than the Gratuity Act, for drawing  the  benefit
of gratuity.  
If an employee makes such a choice,  he  is  provided  with  a
statutory protection, namely, that the concerned employee would be  entitled
to receive better terms of gratuity under the said provision/instrument,  in
comparison to his entitlement under the Gratuity Act.  
This  protection  has
been provided through Section 4 (5) of the Gratuity Act.  
Furthermore,  from
the mandate of Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, it is imperative  to  further
conclude, that the provisions of the  Gratuity  Act  would  have  overriding
effect,  with  reference  to  any  inconsistency  therewith  in  any   other
provision or instrument.  
Thus viewed, even if the provisions of  the  1995,
Regulations, had debarred payment of interest on account of delayed  payment
of gratuity, the same  would  have  been  inconsequential.  The  benefit  of
interest enuring to an employee, as has  been   contemplated  under  section
7(3A) of the Gratuity Act, cannot be denied to an employee,  whose  gratuity
is regulated by some provision/instrument other than the Gratuity Act.  
This
is so because, the terms  of  payment  of  gratuity  under  the  alternative
instrument has to ensure better terms, than  the  ones  provided  under  the
Gratuity Act. 
The effect would be the same, when the concerned provision  is
silent on the issue. This is so, because the instant situation is not  worse
than  the  one  discussed  above,  where  there  is  a  provision  expressly
debarring payment of interest  in  the  manner  contemplated  under  Section
7(3A) of the Gratuity Act. 
Therefore, even  though  the  1995,  Regulations,
are silent on the issue of payment of interest, the  appellant  would  still
be entitled to the benefit of Section 7(3A) of the Gratuity Act.    If  such
benefit is not extended to the appellant, the protection contemplated  under
section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act would stand defeated. 
 Likewise,  even  the
mandate contained in section 14 of the Gratuity Act, deliberated  in  detail
hereinabove, would stand negated.  
We,  therefore,  have  no  hesitation  in
concluding, that even though the provisions of the  1995,  Regulations,  are
silent on the issue of payment of interest, the  least  that  the  appellant
would be entitled to, are terms equal to the benefits  envisaged  under  the
Gratuity Act.  
Under the Gratuity Act, the appellant would  be  entitled  to
interest, on account of delayed payment of gratuity  (as  has  already  been
concluded above).  We therefore hold, that the appellant herein is  entitled
to interest on account of delayed payment, in  consonance  with  sub-Section
(3A) of Section 7 of the Gratuity Act.  We, accordingly, direct the  PNB  to
pay to the appellant,  interest  at  “…the  rate  notified  by  the  Central
Government  for  repayment  of  long  term  deposits…”.   In  case  no  such
notification has been issued, we are of the view, that the  appellant  would
be entitled to interest, as was awarded to him by the learned  Single  Judge
of the High Court vide order dated 4.5.2011, i.e., interest at the  rate  of
8%.  
The PNB is directed, to pay the aforesaid interest  to  the  appellant,
within one month of the appellant’s  furnishing to the PNB a certified  copy
of the instant order.   The  appellant  shall  also  be  entitled  to  costs
quantified at Rs.50,000/-, for having had to incur expenses before the  Writ
Court, before the Division  Bench,  and  finally  before  this  Court.   The
aforesaid costs shall also be disbursed to the  appellant  within  the  time
indicated hereinabove.

22.   Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                           …………………………….J.
                                            (B.S. Chauhan)


                                            …………………………….J.
                                            (Jagdish Singh Khehar)
New Delhi;
December 14, 2012.
-----------------------
21