The Court likewise considered the topic of whether the disciplinary authority can force a punishment of excusal from administration for unfortunate behavior on a representative who has out-dated.
The Bench consistently held that the CDA Rules of 1978 surrounded by the Coal India Limited, read with the arrangements of the Payment of Gratuity Act, give a business the option to retain tip during the pendency of disciplinary procedures. Segment 4(1) of the Act presents a privilege to tip on a representative who has consistently filled in as a worker for at least five years and this installment gets because of them upon their superannuation, retirement or acquiescence, or demise or disablement.
Area 4(6) of the Act accommodates retaining or relinquishment of tip sum in specific conditions.
In such manner, the Court features that Section 4(6) would beat Section 4(1) given that the provision for relinquishment of tip contains a non-obstante proviso. Further, the Act doesn’t make any arrangement for instances of departmental request, and consequently, these legal arrangements don’t come in the method of the CDA Rules, which permit the continuation of a request considerably after the representative’s superannuation. It was held that the charges in the moment case are of intense nature. The respondent is affirmed to have deceptively caused coal-stock deficiencies. The claim, whenever end up being correct, could draw in the discipline of excusal from administration, and by temperance of such excusal, pull in the arrangements of Section 4(6) of the Act relating to relinquishment of tip. Subsequently, the business has the option to retain installment of tip sum, the Court said.
“[I]f such a charge is demonstrated and discipline of excusal is given consequently, the arrangements of sub¬section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act would be pulled in and it would be inside the attentiveness of the appellant¬employer to relinquish the tip payable to the respondent. In this way, the appellant¬ manager has a privilege to retain the installment of tip during the pendency of the disciplinary procedures.”
On whether excusal can be affected significantly after superannuation of worker
The majority judgment on this inquiry held that,
“…the disciplinary authority has forces to force the punishment of excusal/significant punishment upon the respondent considerably after his accomplishing the period of superannuation, as the disciplinary procedures were started while the representative was in administration.”
Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules expresses that a departmental request which was started during the administration of a representative will proceed considerably after the worker has out-dated. The request will be proceeded and deduced in a similar way as though the representative was still in administration. For the restricted reason for this request, the representative would be considered to be still in administration as per the Rules. The Court says that the Rules make a lawful fiction and this “legitimate fiction is required to be given consistent impact”.
Concerning the request of an out-dated worker, the Rules accommodate retaining the installment of tip and relinquishment of the entire or incomplete sum should the charge of unfortunate behavior be demonstrated.
The relinquishment ought to be to the tune of misfortunes brought about by the defaulting representative’s offense as per Section 4(6)(b) of the Act, which accommodates relinquishment because of end of administration. “The recuperation of misfortune or relinquishment is one of the disciplines which relies upon exigency of end by method of excusal as ordered by Section 4(6). To offer impact to the arrangements of the Act, the discipline of excusal can be forced taking into account Rule 34.2, else it would overcome the intendment of arrangements contained in Section 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b) of the Act of 1972.”
The Court along these lines, closed:
(1) the appealing party business has a privilege to retain the tip during the pendency of the disciplinary procedures, and
(2) the disciplinary authority has forces to force the punishment of excusal/significant punishment upon the respondent considerably after his achieving the time of superannuation, as the disciplinary procedures were started while the worker was in administration.
Equity Ajay Rastogi opined that on finish of the request, if the out-dated representative is seen as blameworthy, disciplines endorsed under the plan of the Rules might be caused, however the discipline of excusal from administration with review impact isn’t a choice accessible with the concerned power.
“…either of the considerable punishments determined under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1978 including excusal from administration are not open to be caused on finish of the disciplinary procedures and the discipline of relinquishment of tip proportionate with the idea of blame might be delivered upon a reprobate representative gave under Rule 34.3 of Rules, 1978 read with sub¬section (6) of Section 4 of the Act, 1972.”