High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Central Bank of India v. I.S.Dang - RSA-1179-2005  RD-P&H 574 (6 February 2006)
Case No. : R.S.A.No.1179 of 2005
Date of Decision : February 09, 2006.
Central Bank of India .... Appellant
I.S.Dang .... Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.P.K.Dutt, Advocate
for the appellant.
This judgment shall dispose of seven Regular Second Appeals.
All the appeals arise out of separate suits filed by erstwhile employees of the Bank. All the plaintiffs in the suits sought voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the Bank. Some retiral benefits were not paid and consequently, they filed suits for declaration that they were entitled to interest on their delayed payments.
The learned trial court has gone into the details of the evidence led by the parties and on the basis thereof, has come to a positive conclusion that there has been an unexplained and inordinate delay in making payments of retiral benefits to the employees. Consequently, various suits filed by the several plaintiffs were decreed and the present plaintiff was also held entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The matter was taken up in appeal by the Bank. The evidence on record was re-examined by the learned first appellate court. On such re- examination, the learned first appellate court also came to the conclusion that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay as per the scheme floated by the bank, in making the payment of some of the retiral benefits.
Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed by the learned first appellate court. However, the rate of interest payable to the R.S.A.No.1179 of 2005 : 2 :
plaintiff was reduced and the same was made to 9% per annum. There was another modification. Some of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were also rejected as not falling within the scheme. It was held that only such reliefs could be granted to the plaintiff which fall squarely within the scheme of voluntary retirement. Thus, the appeal filed by the Bank, was partly allowed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere in the present appeals.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
February 09, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.