Debangsu Basak JUDGMENT
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The petitioner seeks gratuity from his employer.
2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was an employee of a bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the bank. The petitioner was dismissed from service in such disciplinary proceeding. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to pension and gratuity. Gratuity was directed to be paid by an Order dated May 2, 2013. The employer had deliberately deposited such amount in an account which was frozen by it. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-I, Kolkata and controlling authority under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The controlling authority had initially passed an Order dated December 15, 2014 directing the bank to pay the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 10%. A subsequent order was passed on February 13, 2015. The respondent No. 6 had by a writing dated march 18, 2015 requested the petitioner to inform the savings bank account number in which the cheque can be deposited. The petitioner had replied thereto by a writing dated march 31, 2015 and requested issuance of the cheque of the petitioner in the correct name. The petitioner wrote further letters requesting for the cheque. However, without issuing any cheque the respondent No. 6 had informed the petitioner by a writing dated May 14, 2015 that, an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- had been credited to the petitioner's savings bank account lying with the Malda Branch of United Bank of India. The petitioner, thereafter, enquired with the Malda Branch, where he was informed that, the account was dormant. These facts were brought to the notice of the controlling authority who by an Order dated May 26, 2015 issued a certificate under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to the District Collector. By such order the controlling authority had directed recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- along with compound interest thereon from may 27, 2015 till the date of recovery at the rate of 15%, as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner had written to the concerned District Magistrate for initiation of the recovery proceedings. The authorities not taking any steps, the petitioner had approached the Writ Court.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, no proceedings were taken under Section 54(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The gratuity receivable by the petitioner cannot be attached. The bank has deliberately put it into frozen account so as to deny payment to the petitioner. Moreover, the bank is seeking to adjust such amount receivable which the bank is not entitled to. In support of such contentions, he relies upon MANU/WB/0201/2000 : 2000 Volume 3 Calcutta Law Times page 468 (Ram Ranjan Mukherjee & Ors. v. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpn. Ltd.), MANU/SC/0801/2013 : 2013 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases page 210 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.) and an unreported decision of the Kerala High Court dated November 19, 2014 passed in W.A. No. 1628 of 2014 in WP(C). 923 of 2014 (Kodanad Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. K.K. Sushama & Anr.).
4. Learned Advocate for the bank refers to the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that, the relief sought for has since been granted. He refers to page 43 of the affidavit-in-opposition in support of such contention. Referring to page 23 of the affidavit-in-opposition he submits that, the petitioner had permitted the bank to adjust the loan amount from the amount receivable by the petitioner on account of gratuity and provident fund. The petitioner, therefore, had volunteered and created a charge over the amount of gratuity receivable by the petitioner. There are amounts outstanding due and payable by the petitioner to the bank. The bank has, therefore, rightly adjusted such dues with the amount of gratuity receivable by the petitioner. In any event, the amount receivable by the petitioner on account of gratuity was paid into a bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no default on the part of the bank in paying the gratuity warranting a certificate case to be initiated. In support of the contention that, gratuity can be allowed to be adjusted towards loan amounts, learned Advocate for the bank relies upon an unreported decision of the Allahabad High Court dated March 8, 2013 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48530 of 2009 (State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. the Appellate Authority & Ors.).
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in reply submits that, the issue of adjustment was sought to be raised before the controlling authority. Such issue cannot now be allowed to be raised by the bank as such issue is barred by the principles of res judicata.
6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
7. The petitioner was an employee of the bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Such disciplinary proceeding culminated into an order of punishment dated May 26, 2009 by which the petitioner was dismissed without notice. Such order of punishment is the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition being W.P. No. 10301(W) of 2009. Apparently, the petitioner had filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 4532(W) of 2009 challenging the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. Such writ petition was disposed by an Order dated April 6, 2009. The petitioner being dismissed from service without any financial punishment, the petitioner became entitled to pension and gratuity. The liability to pay gratuity was acknowledged by the bank. An amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- was acknowledged as payable by the bank to the petitioner on account of gratuity by a writing dated May 13, 2013. The bank, however, deposited such gratuity amount in a bank account of the petitioner maintained with the bank which was frozen, even before the date of deposit of the sum, by the bank. The petitioner, therefore, not being able to withdraw the gratuity amount, approached the respondent No. 4 under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 read with Rule 10(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972. The respondent No. 4 directed the bank to pay the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as gratuity along with simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. The last of such orders of payment is dated February 13, 2015. The proceeding was kept pending. The bank had, thereafter, called upon the petitioner to inform the bank as to which bank account the petitioner would like such payment to be made. Various correspondence ensued between the parties. The petitioner ultimately by a writing dated August 27, 2015 informed the bank that, he has a savings bank account with State Bank of India, Diamond Harbour Branch which may be credited. The account number was given. It appears that, the bank had deposited the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in a bank account in the name of the petitioner at its Malda Branch. The petitioner approached the Malda Branch for operating the account. The Malda Branch did not allow such operation. The application under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was subsequently taken up for consideration on May 26, 2015 when after noticing the bank's refusal to pay the petitioner, an order was passed directing the bank to pay the petitioner the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as gratuity along with compound interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum calculated from May 27, 2015 till the date of recovery. The bank did not comply with such order. The petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 to initiate certificate proceeding. The certificate proceeding has not been initiated till date.
8. Apparently, the petitioner had obtained a loan from bank and executed documents authorising the bank to adjust the receivable amounts on account of pension, gratuity and provident fund with the loan amount. The bank seeks to do so now. The bank claims that, it has banker's lien over the amount receivable and in any event, the petitioner has authorized the bank to receive such amount.
9. The bank did not take the defence of adjustment or banker's lien in the proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The competent authority under the Act of 1972 has directed payment of gratuity in presence of the bank. The bank has accepted such direction and has acted in purported compliance thereof. The direction for payment was made notwithstanding the so-called defence of adjustment being available to the bank. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (supra) a proceeding before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 was under consideration by the High Court. The bank had taken the defence that it is entitled to adjust the loan amount with the gratuity receivable as authorized by the borrower. In such context it has held that, such amount can be adjusted. As noted above, in this case, the bank has not taken this defence in the proceeding before the controlling authority. Rather it had allowed the controlling authority to issue the direction for payment. The bank is, therefore, bound by such direction given by the controlling authority. It cannot set up a defence to a writ petition on an issue which it could have raised in the other proceeding and did not raise the same. In Kodanad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were considered along with banker's lien and general lien. It has held that, lien cannot be exercised over the terminal benefits of a deceased employee. It has also noted the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1972. Ram Ranjan Mukherjee & Ors. (supra) has held that, payment of gratuity cannot be withheld merely because of claim for damages of unauthorized occupation is pending. It has held that, the right to gratuity is not depended upon the employee vacating the official accommodation. Pension and gratuity are not bounties but are properties. It is an earning of an employee. The right to this property cannot be taken away without due process of law. This is the finding in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (supra).
10. Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 protects a gratuity payable under the Act of 1972 from attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court. Section 4 of the Act of 1972 deals with payment of gratuity. Sub-section (6) thereof permits an employer to forfeit gratuity on the grounds specified therein. The gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act of willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to the employer will forfeit the gratuity to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. The gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited for the grounds as provided in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 4. In other words, an employer forfeits gratuity on the happening of events specified in Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972 and not otherwise. Except the forfeiture provided for in Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972, gratuity is payable and is immune from attachment. The gratuity receivable by the employee is, therefore, protected. The protection is not available only when the conditions in Section 4(6) are fulfilled.
11. In the present case, although the petitioner was discharged from service, in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of punishment was without any financial implication. The order of punishment does not impose a forfeiture of gratuity. An employee of the bank may have dual capacities while dealing with the bank. A person can be an employee of the bank as well as its borrower at the same time. There will therefore be two contracts. One being the contract of employment and the other being the contract of loan. As an employee, it may be entitled to receive gratuity for the services rendered in terms of the contract of employment. As a borrower, under the contract of loan, the employee concerned can or may execute documents authorising the bank to adjust the amounts receivable as pensionary and retirement benefits including gratuity with that of the loan amount. The present case concerns gratuity only. The intentions of the legislature under the provisions of the Act of 1972 are clear. An employee is entitled to gratuity unless forfeited in the manner and for the grounds provided for in Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972. The gratuity received under the Act of 1972 is immune from execution of an order of Court. Therefore, a bank cannot approach a Court for the purpose of attaching a gratuity received or receivable by an employee including its own employee for adjustment toward the loan amount. The question is whether a bank, who is not entitled to approach the Court to attach a pensionary benefit, is entitled to adjust the pensionary benefit with a loan without recourse to a Court of law on the strength of documents executed by the employee. The documents executed by the employee permitting the bank to adjust the pensionary benefits will not allow the bank to obtain an order of attachment from the Court in view of Section 13 of the Act of 1972. The same set of documents, therefore, should not be read to mean that it would permit the bank to adjust the loan amount with the pensionary benefits on its own. Such permission would initiate against the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The loan documents permitting the bank to adjust gratuity would be without lawful consideration and with an unlawful object as, if, permitted, it would defeat the provisions of the Act of 1972. Even if the borrower is an employee of the bank, then also the bank cannot adjust the pensionary benefits with the outstanding loan amount on its own. The bank has to physically make over the gratuity amount to the employee. Upon the employee receiving the benefits, the employee concerned may voluntarily pay the loan amount to the bank. There has to be an act of willful volition by the employee concerned in making over the gratuity to the bank towards adjustment of the loan amount after receipt of the gratuity amount. Deposit of the pension amount in the bank account in the name of the employee and having the same adjusted towards the loan amount on the strength of documents executed by the employee will not suffice.
12. Essentially the bank is seeking to obtain relief indirectly which it could not obtain directly. It could have raised the issue of adjustment or banker's lien before the competent authority. It did not do so. A banker's lien or a general lien is available only when a property belonging to the borrower comes into the custody of the bank in its usual course of business. The gratuity receivable by an employee cannot be said to be a property of the employee coming into the possession of a bank, in its usual course of business, before the actual physical payment thereof to the employee concerned. The contract of employment between the bank and its employee gives rise to the earnings of the employee. Such earnings are the property of the employee, which the bank, who pays or makes over the same to its employee. Moreover, by payment of the amount in a bank account of the employee, the employer cannot claim that, the quantum of retiral benefits such as pension or gratuity paid to the employee, come into its possession and, therefore, can be adjusted or a banker's lien can be validly exercised thereon. The adjustment or exercise of banker's lien can be made, only if, the employee makes over the pensionary benefits voluntarily to the bank. In this case, the petitioner has not done so.
13. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 2 is directed to take immediate steps for the purpose of recovering the amount due to the petitioner from the bank as a public demand, and make over the same to the petitioner forthwith, on realization. It is expected that, the respondent No. 2 will commence the recovery proceedings within a week from the date of communication of this order to him. He will endeavour to complete the proceedings within a fortnight thereafter. He will make over the amount due to the petitioner immediately on receipt of the same.
14. W.P. No. 15420 (W) of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
15. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.