CHENNAI: The regulation framed by Indian Bank to postpone payment of gratuity until the conclusion of the disciplinary action or criminal case, was upheld by the Madras High Court, last week.Justice K Chandru dismissed a batch of petitions from M Azeez and nine others, who sought to strike down Regulation 46 (2) of the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995. Petitioners were employees of Indian Bank and were facing serious criminal cases. On their attaining the age of superannuation, they were paid pension but payment of gratuity was deferred till the outcome of the criminal cases, under Regulation 46 (2). They contended that the gratuity could not be withheld on the ground that they were facing criminal cases. “If the contentions raised by the petitioners are accepted, then there will be no scope for the bank to withhold the gratuity in terms of Ssection 4 (6) of Act and the petitioners who are facing criminal cases before the special court, will walk away with the substantial gratuity even if they are found guilty by the criminal court. Therefore, for giving a meaningful interpretation to Section 4 (6) of the Act, it has to be interpreted that in case of the bank employee facing a criminal action, then his gratuity can be forfeited till the disposal of the case,” the judge observed.“Regulation 46, framed by Indian Bank by virtue of the power conferred on it under the Banking Companies Nationalisation Act, was within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution,” the judge added.
Comments
0 comment