ORDER
Petitioner a nationalized bank having found that the 3 respondent, a peon, in its branch was instrumental in perpetuating loss to the bank, in relation to a cheque for Rs. 18,75 lakhs, led to disciplinary proceeding followed by an order of dismissal from service, which when called in question before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, was interfered and the punishment modifying to one of compulsory retirement. Petitioner-Bank having regard to Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short Act, and on the premise that the defalcation of Rs. 18,75 lakhs was due to the action of the 3 respondent, adjusted the gratuity amount against the said sum by denying the 3 respondent the payment of gratuity.
2. The proceeding before the Controlling Authority initiated by the 3 respondent for determination of gratuity was opposed by filing statement of objections of the petitioner, interalia, contending that the loss of Rs. 18,75 lakhs caused to the Bank due to the action of the 3 respondent led to denial of gratuity. The parties having entered trial, the Controlling Authority observed that the trustees of the Gratuity Trust though directed payment of Rs. 1,25,215,38/- towards gratuity, nevertheless, was not complied with by the Bank, which adjusted the said sum against the alleged loss caused. The Controlling Authority observed that the CGIT in its award recorded a finding that there was no direct nexus of commission of the misconduct by the 3 respondent, but the realisation of the proceeds of the cheque in favour of the account holder, was as a result of the actions of the Officers of the Bank, in disregard to the guidelines and failure to exercise the minimum common prudence in not going through and ascertaining the actual advice generated by the workman and in not making required enquiry with the Bellary Main Branch, to interfere with the punishment of dismissal to one of compulsory retirement. Therefore the Controlling Authority was of the opinion that Section 4(6)(a) of the Act, had no application. The Controlling Authority, by order dt. 25/1/2008, allowed the application No. 48(233) 2007-B by having regard to the reported opinions in Bolkuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada reported in AIR 1992 SC 1020 observing that compulsory retirement is not a punishment implying no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour coupled with the observations in Bharath Gold Mines Limited v. Regional Labour Commissioner reported in ILR 1986 KAR 2755 that the employer is required to take an independent decision after the termination of service of an employee as to whether the gratuity payable should at all be forfeited in eases which fall under Section 4(6)(a)(b) of the Act.
3. That order when carried in Appeal No. 03 of 2008-B2 before the Appellate Authority and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore, was affirmed by the order dated 10.8.2011, dismissing the appeal. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact situation is fairly covered by the opinion of the Division Bench of this court in Vijaya Bank, Bangalore v. Mohan Das Ramana Shetty reported in 2008 (6) Kar.L.J.679 (DB) that when a Bank employee is dismissed from service for allowing overdrawings without prior approval of the Controlling Authority, thereby causing loss to the Bank, the decision to forfeit gratuity can be taken only after quantifying the amount of loss and after affording opportunity to the employee to present his defence against the decision proposed and where no proceeding is initiated by the Bank for assessment of loss caused by employee, gratuity cannot be forfeited.
5. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Authorities under the Act, in the orders impugned, calling for interference.
Petition, devoid of merit, is accordingly rejected.