Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd And ANR v. Mohan Singh And ORS
!
" !
#$%& !
'
! (( )
*+, - % *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 3 7(03
3+
1 #& 8% *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+*
.(+ 9
3+
1 #8& $:; *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* *+<(9 7(03
3+
1 #$& 88: *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* +< 3 3+=.
3+
1 #%& 8: *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 7+ 7(03
3+
1
# & $8 % 7+ 7(03
(( + 5+* *./ 0+
0+(
3+
1 #;& $8
.(+ 9
(( + 5+* *./ 0+ *+( +1 +(
3+
1 #:& $; +< 3 3+=.
(( + 5+* *./ 0+ *+( +1 +(
3+
1 #& ;8;
*./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 3+.( 7(03
3+
1 #& ; :;
*./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 73(> 73< 7(03 3(
3+
1 #& ;8;
*./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* ?*9= 7(03
3+
1
#& %%:
*./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* ?>( 9(
3+
1 #8& ; *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 73<3+ 7(03
3+
1 #$& $: ::
*./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* .(/ 7(03
3+
1 #%& : *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* 69 7(03
3+
1 # & ; *./ 0+
0+( +1 +( 2 3+ (( + 5+* >+ 7(03
3+
1 6) @ 2
7 76 7 7
! "#$%# "#&"' ($)* "#&&) "&#)"
$#"+
! "%*&# "%*+) "%*&$ $#"* $$''$ $#") ! "
$ ! "(#*# "(&+'
"(&+% $#"+ ,
-+%*-$#"% -"#%#*-$#$# .
-"(&+'
"(#*# $#"+
! "
-"#$%# "#&"' "#&&) "&#)"
$#"+ / 0
-$()+)-$#") 12
-$)$+-$#"% !
! "
-+%* $)$+ $#"%
3 ! "
-($)*-$#"+ 41
3 ,2 5 ! $ -"%*&$-$#"* 2 46 ! "
-"%*&# "%*+) $#"* 76 7 7
# 2& 4 "+ 6
8
8
9
6 4 : 8 9
6
8 1 1 2 1
;
8
& 9
6
1 8 /<8 :
!
"# $
%
6 $'
$+
8
1 1
8
= "25. It is well settled that gratuity is earned by an employee for long and meritorious service rendered by him. Gratuity is not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon. It is paid to him for the service rendered by him to the employer [vide Garment Cleaning Works v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 SCR 711]. In Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1967] 2 SCR 596, after considering earlier decisions, this Court observed that "long and meritorious service" must mean long and unbroken period of service meritorious to the end. As the period of service must be unbroken, so must the continuity of meritorious service be a condition for entitling the workman to gratuity.
If a workman commits such misconduct as causes financial loss to his employer, the employer would under the general law have a right of action against the employee for the loss caused and making a provision for withholding payment of gratuity where such loss caused to the employer does not seem to aid to the harmonious employment of labourers or workmen. The Court proceeded to state that the misconduct may be such as to undermine the discipline in the workers . a case in which it would be extremely difficult to assess the financial loss to the employer.
26.
In Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors, [1993] 1 SCC 47, this Court had an occasion to consider the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The definition of "pension" included
gratuity under Rule 3. Rule 9 conferred on the President right to withhold or withdraw pension in certain circumstances. The order was passed against the appellant withholding pension and the entire amount of death. cum. retirement gratuity otherwise admissible to him. The direction was given on serious irregularities found to have been committed by the appellant. The appellant challenged that order unsuccessfully before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He, therefore, approached this Court. His contention was that an amount of gratuity could not have been withheld. Negativing the contention, the Court held that the power to withhold gratuity was conferred on the President under the relevant rules and hence, such action could not be said to be illegal. According to the Court, there could be adjustment of Government dues against the amount of death.cum. retirement gratuity payable to Government servant."
( 9 8 /<8 : &
'' () * + , - . - $ ' '
6 /<8 :
1 1 8 2 1 8 = 18
= - "We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is qua the broad observations made in paras 19 and 21 in respect of the right to retain quarters since the dues were not paid. The fact remains that the quarter was never vacated and this resulted in proceedings under the Public Premise (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 which culminated against
the employee and had attained finality. But the entitlement of the respondent under a Scheme of the petitioner cannot be doubted. We are informed that the scheme no more exists. The amount in question is also quite small and thus, we feel it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier . (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No.4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case." '
! 9 8 #&
% ' /
+ 0 - 1 $ '% '
6 = 4 7 #&
' 2 - /
+ $ 4
3$ 6 4 6 = 2 1 1
8 4 + .
8 8 8
6 *
6 6
-=8 > . 6
8 1 8 1 1 1
8 1
8 ) .
- 1 8
3 "' #% $#$# 1
1 1 % : 1 8 8 1 1
6
;
8
8
6
8 1
8
8 - 1
1 8 - 1 8 1 "# - 1 1
8 1 9 1 =
8 1 -
1 1 9 1
8 8 6 62 1 6
2 3 ""
6 8 "$
1 "& 1 8
*+, - % # 76 7 7& harsha !
2; ?;!
8
?;!