P.f & gratuity

Joseph Wilfred (Voluntarily Retired from Indian Overseas Bank) 04 November 2013

DEAR MR. FORUM MEMBERS

I HAVE DOWNLOADED YOUR JUDGEMENTS . DOCK LABOR BOARD AND MAHANADI COAL FIELDS THE SERVICE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES ARE GOVERNED BY " SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT " WHICH IS NOT ATTRACTED TO NATIONALIZED BANKS EMPLOYEES . THERE IS A JUDGEMENT ON INDIAN OXYGEN VS THE MANAGEMENT ON THIS . BANKS ARE GOVERNED BY THEIR OWN SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED FORUM OF BANK EMPLOYEES ( UNIONS ) AND THE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION ( IBA ) ( MANAGEMENT OF BANKS ) . BUT I AM REALLY PUZZLED TO NOTE THAT CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IS APPLIED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN TWO BANK CASES . AS PER THE SETTLEMENTS ,THE BENEFITS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF BANKS AS PER THE SETTLEMENTS. WHAT THE BANKS DO IS , THEY DON'T GET THE PERMISSION LETTER FROM THE EMPLOYEES " WHICH IS A MUST " BUT CLOSE THE LOANS OF THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE . ONCE THE LOANS ARE CLOSED , BRANCH CANNOT DEBIT ANY ACCOUNT AND GIVE CREDIT TO THE EMPLOYEES. EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEE RAISES THIS MATTER IN THE COURT , THE COURT WILL SAY " ARE YOU READY TO CLOSE YOUR LOAN ACCOUNTS ? " THEN IT IS " BY ORDER " ONLY . YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE MEANING - JOSEPH WILFRED - 04/11/2013 AT 19:10 HRS.

(Guest)

Of course, withdrawal of PF cannot be denied, irrespective of whether that is contributory having contained the contribution of the employer, as per rules. Gratuity is not admissible in case of a dismissal of an employee.

Kumar Doab (FIN) 29 June 2014

There might be many reasons/misconducts in the list/standing orders/rules valid for award of dismissal from service.

The dismissal per se alone does not render any employee ineligible for the payment of Gratuity.

The forfeiture of Gratuity is well defined in the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972: Sec4(6)…………

And before that EVERYTHING…………………..NATURAL JUSTICE, statutory show cause notice, inquiry, opportunity of proper hearing, speaking order EVERYTHING has to be done…………………

Kumar Doab (FIN) 20 August 2015

Page

1

C.A. No. ___/2013 @SLP(C)No. 31583 of 2013

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9693/2013

[SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO. 31583 OF 2013]

Ch. cum Man. Director Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd.

...........Appellant

Versus

Rabindranath Choubey

........Respondent

can be viewed at:

https://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40916

Some interesting points are:

22……………………………………..This goes contrary to the dicta laid down in Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) which took the view that no major penalty is permissible after retirement was not even referred to.

23……………………We find that Jaswant Singh Gill's case directly answers this question it is because of the reason that the said

judgment proceeds on the basis that after the retirement of an employee, penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed upon the retired employee…………

24. this course of action is available only if disciplinary authority has necessary powers to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent even after his retirement.