[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Food Corporation Of India vs Union Of India on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13831 of 2019
======================================================
Food Corporation of India Through General manager, Regional Office
Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, Patna.- 1
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna cum Appellate
Authority Maurya Lok, Patna,2nd Floor, maurya Complex, P.S. Kotwali,
District- Patna.
3. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna, 2nd Floor, Maurya
complex, P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna.
4. Shaukat Ali, Son of Late Abudl Sattar, R/o Belahia, PS- Sursand, District-
Sitamarhi.
5. Directorate General of Mines and Safety, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Sardar Patel Nagar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 826001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Saket Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : None
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-12-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief(s):
"i. Quashing the order dated
30.04.2019
passed in file No 36/02/2018-
Appeal/Dy.CLC by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna cum
Appellate Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 by which it has upheld
the order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Patna and Controlling Authority under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in File No.
48/1(13)/2015/ALC-PT.
ii. Quashing the order dated
30.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna and
Controlling Authority under the Payment
Gratuity Act, 1972 in File No.
48/1(13)/2015/ALC-PT by which the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, (Central)
Patna has directed the petitioner to paid
Gratuity to Respondent Shaukat Ali for the
entire period of service and further 10%
interest total amounting to Rs. 14,29,797/-
iii. During pendency of this writ
application stay the operation of impugned
orders.
iv. For any other relief(s) for
which the petitioner is entitled for in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. At the outset, the Learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that Writ
petition, being CWJC No. 11529 of 2019 (Food
Corporation of India through General
Manager Vs. Union of India & Ors.), was earlier
filed by the Writ petitioner herein, seeking similar
relief, and the facts of the case were also similar to
those in the present writ petition. The said Writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
petition was allowed by a judgment dated
06.12.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in light of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath Choubey
reported in 2020(3) PLJR (SC) 438.
3. Therefore, the Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that since this matter is
squarely covered under the order passed in Food
Corporation of India through General
Manager(supra) by this Court, this Writ petition
may also be disposed of on the same terms and
conditions.
4. Heard the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner. However, despite repeated
adjournments having been granted, no one
appears on behalf of the respondents.
5. For better appreciation of the facts,
the relevant part of the judgment passed in Food
Corporation of India through General
Manager (supra) is quoted hereinbelow:
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
"12. The moot question for
consideration before this court is as to
whether the payment of gratuity will be
subject to the outcome of the Departmental
Proceeding or the authority under Gratuity Act
has rightly passed the order for payment of
gratuity. The identical issue involved in the
present writ application was pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 9693 of 2013
(Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Rabindranath
Choubey) and the three Judges Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court having considered the
various aspect of the matter including the
relevant provisions of the Payment and
Gratuity Act, 1972 has been pleased to held
that:
"The provisions of Section 4(6) of
the Act of 1972 prevail over Section 4(1) as
provisions of Section 4(6) contain non-
obstante clause as to Section 4(1). It would
prevail over the provisions made in Section
4(1) and gratuity would not become payable
mandatorily as provided in Section 4(1). The
provisions of Section 4(6) provide recovery or
forfeiture where services of employee have
been terminated for the reasons prescribed in
Section 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b). Section 4(6)(a)
and (b) both provide for recovery of loss
caused or forfeiture wholly or partially in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
case of termination of services. In case after
superannuation of employee there cannot be
any dismissal i.e., termination of services as
contemplated in Section 4(6), then there can
be no recovery of pecuniary loss caused by
employee or forfeiture of gratuity wholly or
partially as that can only be done in the event
of termination of services on charges found
established. Such an interpretation would
render continuance of enquiry otiose and
would defeat the public policy and the
provisions of Act of 1972. The recovery of loss
or forfeiture is one of the punishments which
depends on exigency of termination by way of
dismissal as mandated by Section 4(6). To
give effect to the provisions of the Act, the
punishment of dismissal can be imposed in
view of Rule 34.2, otherwise it would defeat
the intendment of provisions contained in
Section 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b) of the Act of 1972.
"
13. This Court also thinks it apt
and proper to quote paragraph nos. 38 and 39
of the aforesaid judgment in order to
crystallize the matter in issue, which reads as
follows:
"38. Taking note of the exposition
of law which has been noticed and of the
scheme of Rules, 1978, which indubitably has
a binding force and are not a subject matter
under challenge and are neither in derogation
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
nor in contravention to the scheme of
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. I have no
hesitation in holding that the substantive
penalties provided under the schedule of
penalties referred to under Rule 27 could be
inflicted on a delinquent employee while he is
in service but in case where the delinquent
employee stood retired or superannuated
from service pending disciplinary inquiry, at
least either of the substantive penalties
provided under Rule 27 are not available to
the disciplinary authority to be inflicted with
retrospective effect but at the same time
punishment of forfeiture of gratuity if held
guilty for misconduct or negligence to the
extent damage or pecuniary loss has been
caused to the employer can be inflicted upon
the delinquent in terms of Rule 34.3 of Rules
1978 read with sub section (6) of Section 4 of
the Act, 1972 and in case the delinquent
employee stands exonerated he became
entitled for gratuity for the delay in payment
in terms of Sections 7(3) and 7(3A) of Act,
1972 and as a matter of caution, it should not
be presupposed that where the disciplinary
inquiry remain pending and could not be
concluded while the delinquent employee was
in service in due course of time, he shall be
held guilty and punished under the scheme of
Rules, 1978.
39. To sum up, my conclusion to
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
the question is as under:
Que. 1 Whether it is permissible
in law for the employer to withhold the
payment of gratuity even after the employee
has attained his superannuation from service
because of the pendency of disciplinary
proceedings against him?
Ans. I am in agreement with the
view expressed by brother Justice Shah that in
view of Rule 34.3 of the Rules, 1978, the
employer has a right to withhold gratuity
during pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings.
Que. 2 Whether the penalty of
dismissal could be imposed after the
employee stood retired from service?
Ans. In my considered view, after
conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, if held
guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon
an employee/delinquent who stood retired
from service and what should be the nature of
penalty is always depend on the relevant
scheme of Rules and on the facts and
circumstances of each case, but either of the
substantive penalties specified under Rule 27
of the Rules, 1978 including dismissal from
service are not open to be inflicted on
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and
the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity
commensurate with the nature of guilt may
be inflicted upon a delinquent employee
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
provided under Rule 34.3 of Rules, 1978 read
with sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act,
1972."
14. Considering the aforesaid
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri
Rabindranath Choubey (supra) this court is of
the opinion that before superannuation of an
employee, who was departmentally
proceeded with and in terms of the regulation,
inflicted with the punishment of compulsory
retirement from the service of the Corporation
with forfeiture of entire amount of gratuity the
employee would only be entitled for payment
of gratuity on the basis of outcome of the
departmental proceeding which at present
admittedly against the respondent no.4 and
the matter between the parties is still pending
before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal (CGIT), Dhanbad. Hence, the
impugned order of the controlling authority
dated 31.01.2018 as contained in Annexure-2
directing the petitioner to pay gratuity to the
respondent no.4 as also the appellate order
dated 30/31.01.2019 as contained in
Annexure 1 to the writ petition upholding the
order of the Controlling Authority are hereby
set aside.
15. It is needless to say that the
payment of gratuity shall be subject to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13831 of 2019 dt.01-12-2025
final outcome of Complaint Case No.1 of
2013. This court hopes and trust that the
Tribunal will make all possible endeavour to
dispose of this case expeditiously.
16. In view of the aforesaid
settled legal position, the writ application is
hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to
cost."
6. Having regard to the submissions
made by the Learned counsel for the petitioner,
the present writ petition stands disposed of in
terms of the judgment passed in Food
Corporation of India through General
Manager(supra)
7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands
allowed.
8. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall
stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.12.2025
Transmission Date
