Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2023 (ALL)

Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank v. Komal Ram

2024-09-09

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Chandra Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/5, Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the leading petition and Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sri Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1, Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the connected petition, i.e. Writ C No.20841 of 2024. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the aforesaid writ petitions are being heard finally without inviting counter affidavits in the matter. 3. Since common issues are involved in both the writ petitions, same are being disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in Writ C No.20839 of 2024 shall be treated as a leading petition. 4. Brief facts of the case stated in the leading petition are that erstwhile Purvanchal Bank, Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank are now amalgamated vide Government Notification No.3837 dated 26.11.2019 and assigned the new name “Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank”. The Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.2020. The employees who were working under erstwhile Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank, now Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank are governed by Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank (Officer and Employees) Service Regulations, 2020. In respect to payment of gratuity, there exists Regulation No.72 for payment of gratuity in the Purvanchal Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees), Service Regulations, 2010, now Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2020. Under Chapter 4 of Regulation, 2010, there exist Regulations 16 to 51 which contains provision pertaining to conduct, discipline and appeals. Respondent no.1 joined in Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank and he was holding the post of Officer JMGS-1 at Nariaon Branch. At the time of aforementioned posting, in respect to certain financial irregularity, a charge-sheet dated 21.1.2020 was issued to respondent no.1. The aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, on the basis of the aforementioned charge-sheet, was concluded and vide order dated 7.9.2012, respondent no.1 was dismissed from services of the bank with immediate effect. Against the order dated 7.9.2012, an appeal was filed by respondent no.1 which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 1.2.2013. The aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, on the basis of the aforementioned charge-sheet, was concluded and vide order dated 7.9.2012, respondent no.1 was dismissed from services of the bank with immediate effect. Against the order dated 7.9.2012, an appeal was filed by respondent no.1 which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 1.2.2013. Respondent no.1 filed re-appeal against the order dated 7.9.2012 which was also dismissed on 18.11.2013 on the ground that there is no provision of review under Service Regulation, 2010. Respondent no.1 challenged the orders dated 7.9.2012 and 1.2.2013 before this Court by wary of Writ A No.22630 of 2013 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2013. Respondent no.1 filed an application on 22.2.2018 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)/Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which was registered as Case No.A-48(9) of 2018, claiming gratuity for services rendered by him in bank for 32 years 11 months and 24 days, i.e. from 13.10.1979 to 7.9.2012. The notice was issued by the Controlling Authority to the bank, accordingly, the bank submitted his reply before the Controlling Authority on 12.10.2018. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 16/19.8.2021 has held that respondent no.1 is entitled for gratuity amount of Rs.4,68,213/- along with 7 % simple interest, amounting to Rs.2,89,511/-, total amounting to Rs.7,57,724/-. Against the order of the Controlling Authority dated 16/19.8.2021, the petitioner-bank filed an appeal under sub-section 7 of Section 7 of the Act before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)/The Appellate Authority by depositing Rs.7,57,724/- vide D.D. No.371829 dated 29.11.2021. The aforementioned appeal was registered as Case No.K-36(69)/2021 C-1. The appellate authority vide order dated 27.3.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 which was sent on 08.04.2024 as passed by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)/The Appellate Authority (Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Udyog Nagar, Kanpur, the same was received by the petitioner on 16.04.2024 in Case No. K.36 (69)/2021 C-1 (The Chairman, Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank Vs. Shri Komal Ram & Another) Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition. ii. Shri Komal Ram & Another) Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Ceriorari quashing the impugned order dated 16/19.08.2021 as passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), The Controlling Authority (Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Allahabad in Case No. A-48 (9) 2018 (Sri Komal Ram Vs The Chairman Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank.) Annexure No.2 to this Writ Petition. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for releasing the deposited amount Rs. 7,57,724/- as was deposited by the petitioner-bank at the time of the filing of appeal. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to orders impugned. 5. This Court vide order dated 18.7.2024 entertained the matter and granted interim relief. The order dated 18.7.2024 runs as follows:- “1. Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shubham Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner by the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. He further submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service and writ petition against the dismissal order has been dismissed by this Court, as such, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman Cum Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey passed in Civil Appeal No.9693 of 2013, respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim gratuity as ordered under the impugned order. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that there is no illegality in the order of controlling authority as there was violation of the mandatory provisions contained under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 shall address the Court about the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman Cum Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (supra) on the next date fixed in the matter as well as place case law in support of his argument. 5. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 shall address the Court about the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman Cum Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (supra) on the next date fixed in the matter as well as place case law in support of his argument. 5. Put up this case as fresh on 31.7.2024. 6. Till the next date of listing, the amount deposited by the petitioner under the order of controlling authority shall not be released by respondent no.2.” 6. The brief facts of the case in connected petition is that respondent no.1 joined in the establishment of Purvanchal Bank and lastly he was also holding the post of JMGS-II at Kubersthan branch, Kushinagar and Jannipur branch, Gorakhpur. Respondent no.1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.12.2014 and appeal filed by respondent no.1 was dismissed by the appellate authority on 8.4.2015. Respondent no.1 challenged the dismissal order as well as appellate order before this Court by way of Writ A No.69162 of 2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.2018. Respondent no.1 initiated proceeding for payment of his due gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which was allowed by Controlling Authority vide order dated 16.10.2019 for gratuity amount of Rs.5,72,178/- and interest of Rs.100131/- total Rs.6,72,309/-. In appeal filed by petitioner, the order of controlling authority was modified by appellate authority vide order dated 1.4.2024 to the extent that respondent no.1 shall be entitled to total Rs.8,43,963/- in place of Rs.5,72,178/- as interest was not rightly calculated by the controlling authority, hence, this writ petition for following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.4.2024 which was sent on 09.04.2024 as passed by Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)/The Appellate Authority (Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Udyog Nagar, Kanpur, the same was received by the petitioner on 16.04.2024 in Case No. K.36 (12)/2020 C-1 (The Chairman, Baroda Uttar Pradesh Bank vs. Shri Komal Ram & Another) Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition. ii. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 as passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), The Controlling Authority (Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), Lucknow in Case No. LKO 36 (27) /2017 (Sri Santosh Kumar Pathak vs. The Chairman, Purvanchal Bank). Annexure No.2 to this Writ Petition. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for releasing the deposited amount of Rs. 5,72,178/- as was deposited by the petitioner-bank at the time of the filing of appeal. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to orders impugned. 7. This Court entertained the matter on 18.7.2024 and granted interim order on 18.7.2024. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding, initiated against respondent no.1, with respect to serious financial charges, respondent no.1 was held guilty and was dismissed from service of the bank with immediate effect, as such, respondent no.1 is not entitled to gratuity as claimed by him. He further submitted that appeal as well as re-appeal filed by respondent no.1 against his dismissal order, has also been dismissed by the appellate authority. He submitted that even the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 in respect to the dismissal order, has been dismissed by this Court, as such, respondent no.1 is not entitled to claim gratuity. He also submitted that respondent no.1 has not disclosed in his application for payment of gratuity regarding the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He also submitted that the Controlling Authority has failed to consider the material fact that petitioner-bank has its own rules governing the payment of gratuity to its officers and employees, as such, the Act shall not be applicable in the petitioner-bank. He submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner-bank has also been dismissed in arbitrary and casual manner, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the claim of respondent no.1 for payment of gratuity is liable to be rejected. He placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9693 of 2013, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey, decided on 27.5.2020. He placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9693 of 2013, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Sri Rabindranath Chaubey, decided on 27.5.2020. He further placed the Service Regulation of the petitioner-bank which provides for payment of gratuity to its officers and employees. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 in both the writ petitions submitted that respondent no.1 was regular employee of the petitioner-bank, as such, the claim for gratuity set up by respondent no.1, cannot be refused by the authority. He submitted that the respondent no.1 in both the writ petitions have claimed for gratuity for the period they were appointed in the bank and till the date they were dismissed from the service, as such, there was no question of any concealment on the part of respondent no.1 before the Controlling Authority or the appellate authority. They further submitted that so far as the delay in raising the claim is concerned, since the Controlling Authority had already condoned the delay in entertaining the application and, thereafter, passed an order on merit, as such, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay in raising the claim, is misconceived. They further submitted that respondent no.1 have completed 32 years 11 months and 24 days service before his dismissal, as such, respondent no. 1 in both the petitions are eligible to receive the gratuity for the aforementioned service period. They also submitted that since respondent no.1 in both the petitions were denied for their legal claim regarding gratuity, as such, the interest has been rightly awarded by the Controlling Authority. They submitted that appeal filed by the petitioner-bank has been rightly dismissed, deciding each and every point raised by the petitioner, which requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They further submitted that in connected petition, the claim regarding interest was modified by appellate authority in proper manner. They further submitted that the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the present matter. He further placed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (4) Supreme 764 , Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another and that of the Delhi High Court reported in 2024 DHC 5022, Punjab National Bank vs. Niraj Gupta and Another in support of his argument. He further placed the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (4) Supreme 764 , Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another and that of the Delhi High Court reported in 2024 DHC 5022, Punjab National Bank vs. Niraj Gupta and Another in support of his argument. They finally submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent no.1 in both the petitions were appointed in the erstwhile Kashi Gomti Samyut Gramin Bank and at the time of dismissal, they were holding the post of Officer JMGS-1 & JMGS-II. There is also no dispute about the fact that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions were dismissed from service and appeal, re-appeal as well as the writ petition filed by them were also dismissed. There is also no dispute about the fact that the claim of gratuity under the Act, filed by respondent no.1, was allowed and the appeal filed by petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Act has been dismissed under the impugned order. 12. There is also no dispute about the fact that the claim of gratuity under the Act, filed by respondent no.1, was allowed and the appeal filed by petitioner under Section 7(7) of the Act has been dismissed under the impugned order. 12. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Section 4(6) & 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as well as Rule 8(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 will be relevant for consideration which are as under:- “Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:-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 fortefied 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 of violence onhis part, or, (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes as offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” “Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972:-(1) A person who is eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorised, 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 gratuity so determined. (3) The employer 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. (3) The employer 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 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.] (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. (e) 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 commissions 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, 1860 (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 subsection (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.” “Rule- 8(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Central Rules, 1972:- Within fifteen days of the receipt of an application under Rule-7 for payment of gratuity, the employer shall- (i) 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, or (ii) if the claim for gratuity is not found admissible, issue a notice in Form-M to the applicant employee, nominee or legal heir, as the case may be specifying the reasons why the claim for gratuity is not considered admissible.” 13. The perusal of Chapter VII of Section 72 of the Regulation 2010 will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- 72. Gratuity.- (1) An officer or employee shall be eligible for payment of gratuity either as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or as per sub-regulation (2), whichever is higher. (2) Every officer or employee shall be eligible for gratuity on, - a) retirement, b) death, c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank, or (d) resignation after completing 10 years of continuous service, or (e) termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service: Provide that in respect of an employee there shall be no forfeiture of gratuity for dismissal on account of misconduct except in cases where such misconduct causes financial loss to the bank and in that case to that extent only. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer or employee shall be one months pay for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months subject to a maximum of 15 month’s pay: Provided that where an officer or employee has completed more than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible by way of gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a month’s pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years: Provided further that in respect of an officer the gratuity is payable based on the last pay drawn: Provided also that in respect of an employee pay for the purposes of calculation of the gratuity shall be the average of the basic pay (100%), dearness allowance and special allowance and officiating allowance payable during the 12 months preceding death, disability, retirement, resignation or termination of service, as the case may be. 14. The perusal of operative portion of dismissal order dated 7.9.2012 passed against respondent no.1 in the leading petition will be necessary which is as under:- Order SHRI KOMAL RAM IS HEREBY DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICES OF THE BANK WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION SHALL BE TREATED AS PERIOD NOT SPENT ON DUTY AND HENCE SRI KOMAL RAM SHALL NOT BE PAID ANY SALARY AND ALLOWANCES OTHER THAN SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ALREADY PAID TO HIM. 15. The perusal of the dismissal order dated 13.12.2014 passed against the respondent no.1 in the connected petition will be necessary which is as under:- 16. The perusal of the provision contained under the Act, regulation of the bank, dismissal order dated 7.9.2012, it is established that respondent no.1 who has expired during pendency of the instant writ petition now represented by his legal heirs in the leading petition and respondent no.1 in the connected petition, cannot be deprived from gratuity for the period from the date of appointment till the date of dismissal of service of respondent no.1, i.e. 32 years 11 months 24 days as there is no proceeding at the instance of the bank for forfeiture of gratuity as provided under Section 4(6) of the Act and Rule 8(1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972. 17. 17. Controlling Authority and appellate authority have considered the point relating to delay in filing the claim for gratuity, entitlement for gratuity as well as interest on the amount of gratuity which requires no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. The payment of gratuity is not charity rather is a statutory right recognized by the Act. 19. The disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent no.1 who is no more, has resulted into dismissal of service as well as depriving them from salary and allowance during suspension except subsistence allowance, as such, further depriving the respondent no.1/his legal heirs after death of respondent no.1 in the leading petition and respondent no.1 in the connected petition from gratuity for the period before the date of dismissal of his service will be excessive punishment and cannot be permitted in view of the provisions contained under the Acts and Rules. 20. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields (supra) has been taken into consideration by Delhi High Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) as cited by learned counsel for respondents. Paragraph Nos. 90 to 101 of the judgment in Punjab National Bank (supra) will be relevant for perusal which are as under:- “90. This Court is further of the view that the most essential element which is with regards to the act resulting in dismissal constituting an “offence” amounting to moral turpitude has not been proved against the respondent employee by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the same can be deduced from the fact that no criminal proceedings either by the complainant or by the petitioner Bank has been initiated against the respondent employee let alone conviction. 91. Before concluding, this Court before, deems it necessary to shed some light on a specific averment advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Bank i.e., the judgment passed in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra), relied upon in Ajay Babu (Supra) has been overruled by a three Judges Bench of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields (Supra). 92. 91. Before concluding, this Court before, deems it necessary to shed some light on a specific averment advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Bank i.e., the judgment passed in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra), relied upon in Ajay Babu (Supra) has been overruled by a three Judges Bench of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields (Supra). 92. Before clarifying the disputed position of law as averted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank this Court, deems it necessary to cull out the findings of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra) wherein the discussion inter alia was majorly based on two aspects: Firstly it was held that the provisions contained under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would prevail over the non-statutory rules (Rules 34.2 and 34.30 framed by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.). Secondly, the Court analysed the provision contained under the Act especially Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and observed that the Act provides for a close-knit scheme for payment of gratuity and contains detailed provisions which not only creates a right to payment of gratuity for the employees but also lay down the conditions in which the same may be forfeited. Furthermore, it was held that Section 4(6)(b) of the Act also provides for forfeiture of gratuity payable to an employee wholly or partly in the event his services have been terminated by the employer on account of his riotous or disorderly conduct or for any other act of violence on his part or if he has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. 93. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Mahanadi Coalfields (Supra) took an opposite view to the decision in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra) wherein it was inter alia held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would prevail over the non-statutory rules framed by the employer. The Hon?ble Court in Mahanadi Coalfields (Supra) found it difficult to agree with the decision in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra) and observed that the Rules framed by the employer are applicable and are not repugnant to provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 94. After having stated the ratio of Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra), it is appropriate to deal with the abovesaid contention. 94. After having stated the ratio of Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra), it is appropriate to deal with the abovesaid contention. With regard to the averment made by the counsel for the petitioner Bank, this Court is of the view that although the judgment passed in Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra) has been overruled by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields (Supra) however, a perusal and close understanding of the same depicts that nowhere has the aspect pertaining to „conviction? being an essential element for forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6)(b) of the Act been overruled. 95. In fact, the said aspect has not been discussed or analysed at all by the Hon”ble Court thus, it is clarified that Jaswant Singh Gill (Supra) in its entirety has not been overruled and the reliance placed upon it by the Hon”ble Court in Ajay Babu (Supra) cannot be deemed redundant. CONCLUSION 96. Resultantly, as far as the instant case is concerned, is that the order for forfeiture of gratuity payable to the respondent employee was premature and could not have been taken until the respondent employee was convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction for the act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude as per Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. 97. Considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as the consistent view taken by various High Courts including this Court, the submission advanced by the petitioner Bank cannot be accepted. 98. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not any merit in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, held to be misconceived and unnecessary. The petitioner Bank has not been able to make out a case which warrants the interference of this Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 99. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 7th April, 2022 passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No. 36(09)/2021 P.A.DYC and subsequent Notice dated 26th April, 2022 issued by the respondent no.2 bearing no. ALC-I/36(88)2018, accordingly, the same are upheld. 100. In light of the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications, if any. 101. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.” 21. ALC-I/36(88)2018, accordingly, the same are upheld. 100. In light of the aforementioned observations, the instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending applications, if any. 101. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.” 21. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned orders. 22. The writ petitions are dismissed and interim orders granted on 18.7.2024 are vacated. 23. No order as to cost.