-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
The case, which centered on the interpretation of various regulations and acts including the Punjab National Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979, and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, concluded with the Supreme Court stating, "The act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged in the present case as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement."
Justice Maheshwari observed that the Bank's unilateral decision to deny Ray's benefits was not supported by the chargesheet or the enquiry report, as there was no recorded finding of loss caused to the Bank by Ray's actions. He noted, "In the facts as discussed, the unilateral report cannot be relied upon by the Board of Directors to deny the benefit of payment of employer’s contribution of provident fund."
The judgment has significant implications for employees facing compulsory retirement, ensuring that their rights to terminal benefits are protected. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the principle that penalties should not extend to the deprivation of an employee's earned benefits without clear justification and proper procedure.
The case was argued by Mr. Irshad Ahmad on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam represented the respondent, Punjab National Bank. The court's decision sets a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the protective legal framework for employees' post-retirement benefits.
Date of Decision: 06 November 2023
JYOTIRMAY RAY VS THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/06-Nov-2023_Jyotirmay_Ray_Vs_Field_Manager_PNB.pdf"]
