1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3717/2010 Petitioner :- Western Coalfields Ltd., Through Chief General Manager, Ballarpur Area, Post Sasti, Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. ...Versus... Respondent :- Shri D.K. Chandok, Major Ex. Personnel Manager of WCL, Ballarpur Area, WCL Qrt. No. NC-13, Durgapur Colony, Shakti Nagar, Post Urjagram, Distt. Chandrapur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.S. Mehadia, Adv. for petitioner] CORAM:- S.A. BOBDE, J. DATED :- 13.08.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, denying the right of the petitioner to withhold the gratuity amount of the respondent. The departmental proceedings have been initiated against the respondent – employee for taking illegal gratification. After enquiry, the respondent retired. The petitioner – employer withheld the gratuity amount, as a result of which the respondent approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Controlling Authority directed the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest thereon @ 10% w.e.f. 01.07.2009 till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved thereby, he filed an appeal, which has been dismissed, against which the present petition has been preferred. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner ought to have been considered entitle to withhold the gratuity amount since the respondent was retired from service on the ground of misconduct. However, what its consequence is whether the petitioner has any right to withhold the gratuity on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings. There is no dispute that in the present case the second show-cause-notice, calling upon the respondent, to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service is pending decision. I find that the learned Appellate Authority has rightly relied on the decisions which laid down the law to the effect that the payment of gratuity of the retired employee cannot be withheld since the employee has retired before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings as in the case, when there was no finding to the effect that there was financial loss. The appellate authority has rightly held that the employer cannot escape from the liability to pay gratuity under Section 7 (3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act along with interest under Sub Section (3A) of Section 7 of the Act. There is no error committed by the Appellate Authority in modifying the order of interest, passed by the Controlling Authority either. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE SSW