Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 232 (GUJ)

Nanabhai Vitthaldas Patel v. Executive Engineer

2015-02-26

C.L.SONI

body2015
Judgment C.L. Soni, J. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the decision/notice dated 14.2.2014 at Annexure-A and sought direction against the respondent to pay him retrial benefits along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of retirement. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner when was serving as driver, the truck driven by him met with an accident resulting into death of one of the employees traveling in the vehicle. Heirs of the deceased employee, therefore, filed claim petition, being Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1923 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara and the Tribunal ordered compensation of Rs. 10,19,516/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to be recovered jointly and severally from the petitioner and the respondent company-employer of the petitioner. Judgment of the Tribunal is challenged by the Insurance Company by preferring No. 3320 of 2007 which is pending before this Court. The petitioner has averred that he was due to retire on 28.2.2014, however by the impugned decision/notice dated 14.2.2014, the respondent company has withheld retrial benefits of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the appeal before this Court. It is further case of the petitioner that while discharging his duty as driver, the accident occurred and, the order passed by the Tribunal in the claim petition cannot be a ground for withholding of the retrial benefits. 2. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply and the stand taken is that retrial benefits of the petitioner are withheld on account of the award made by the Tribunal holding the petitioner jointly and severally liable and also because the petitioner is also convicted in the criminal proceedings in connection with the accident. It is further stated that the respondent is bound to pay the retrial benefits of the petitioner after the First Appeal is finally heard and decided by this Court. 3. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has withheld the retrial benefits of the petitioner not on account of any disciplinary action against the petitioner but simply on the basis of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal holding the petitioner liable for the amount awarded jointly and severally with the respondent company. Mr. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has withheld the retrial benefits of the petitioner not on account of any disciplinary action against the petitioner but simply on the basis of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal holding the petitioner liable for the amount awarded jointly and severally with the respondent company. Mr. Dave submitted that there are no rules or regulations of the respondent for withholding retrial benefits of its employees nor even the respondent company has got any authority under any Rules or Regulations to withhold retrial benefits on the basis of the award made by the Claims Tribunal. Mr. Dave submitted that in fact, as per the impugned decision/notice, only ground for withholding of retrial benefits of the petitioner is of making the award by the Claims Tribunal and pendency of the first appeal before this Court which could not be said to be in any way a legal ground available to the respondent to withhold the retrial benefits of the petitioner. 5. As against the above arguments, learned advocate Ms. Acharya submitted that since the petitioner was found responsible by the Claims Tribunal for causing accident, the petitioner is also held jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation and therefore, the respondent company has decided not to release retrial benefits of the petitioner except some part of gratuity, which is released to the petitioner, till the first appeal is finally heard and decided. Ms. Acharya submitted that the respondent has also considered conviction of the petitioner by the Criminal Court in connection with the accident. Ms. Acharya, however, could not dispute that there are no rules with the company to withhold retrial benefits of its employees, especially on the ground that its employee is held liable for compensation by the Claims Tribunal in the claim petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that mere is no dispute that till the petitioner retired from service with effect from 28.2.2014, no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner. It is also not the case that retrial benefits of the petitioner have not been withheld on account of either criminal proceedings or departmental proceedings. When specifically asked to Ms. It is also not the case that retrial benefits of the petitioner have not been withheld on account of either criminal proceedings or departmental proceedings. When specifically asked to Ms. Acharya as to whether the respondent company has its rules or regulations for its employees, she fairly stated that there are no rules or regulations including the rules or regulations authorizing the respondent to withhold retrial dues of its employees. It appears from the impugned decision/notice at Annexure-A, out of Rs. 5,22,405/- being the amount of gratuity available to the petitioner, Rs. 3,40,000/- gratuity is withheld, Rs. 3,48,270/- and Rs. 61,000/- towards leave encashment and SRCDB respectively have been withheld. In the impugned decision/notice, the only ground stated for withholding of the said amounts is of the award passed by the Claims Tribunal and pendency of the first appeal before the High Court against the award of the Claims Tribunal. 7. Having considered the above aspects of the matter, the Court is of the view that there is no valid ground or reason for the respondents to withhold retrial benefits of the petitioner under the impugned decision/notice. Simply because the petitioner is held jointly and severally liable by the Claims Tribunal for award of compensation, against which first appeal is pending at the instance of the Insurance Company before this Court, the respondent would not be justified in withholding retrial dues of the petitioner especially when there is no rule or regulation with the respondent company authorizing it to withhold retrial benefits. The impugned decision/notice therefore, requires to be set aside and the respondent is required to be directed to release the withheld retrial benefits of the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Dave, however, submitted that the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 12% on the amounts with held by the respondent company from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the petitioner is actually paid his retrial dues by the respondent. Learned advocate Ms. Acharya, however, submitted that dues were withheld on account of the award of the Claims Tribunal and not with any mala fide intention. She, therefore, objects to grant of any interest on the amounts to be released to the petitioner. 9. Learned advocate Ms. Acharya, however, submitted that dues were withheld on account of the award of the Claims Tribunal and not with any mala fide intention. She, therefore, objects to grant of any interest on the amounts to be released to the petitioner. 9. However, the Court finds that if there is no authority or power with the respondent to withhold retrial dues of the petitioner, the petitioner could be made entitled to reasonable rate of interest on the amounts withheld by the respondent from the date of his retirement till said amounts are actually paid to the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the petition is partly allowed. Impugned decision/notice dated 14.2.2014 at Annexure-A is quashed and set aside. The respondent is directed to release the withheld amounts covered under the impugned decision/notice within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of this order to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner till said amounts are actually paid to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.