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 outst........