Cuttack: Odisha high court has upheld the imposition of a Rs 20,000 fine on Odisha State Cooperative Bank (OSCB), holding that courts are justified in penalising employers who unlawfully withhold statutory retirement benefits on flimsy grounds.Dismissing the bank’s writ appeal on June 29, a division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman refused to interfere with an Oct 28, 2025, order of an HC single-judge bench, directing the OSCB to release gratuity with 10% interest to its former deputy general manager, Managobinda Barik, who retired in Feb 2012, besides imposing the fine. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming both the gratuity award with 10% interest and 20,000 fine imposed by the single judge.Advocate Kali Prasad Nanda, who represented the OSCB, argued that the cost imposed by the judge would “percolate a wrong signal” among its employees, and therefore deserved to be set aside. It also contended that the gratuity was withheld because disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee before his retirement.Explaining why the fine was justified, the two-judge bench said an employer cannot derive an unfair advantage by forcing a retired employee into prolonged litigation to secure a statutory entitlement.“Such unjust enrichment over the statutory rights invites the imposition of fine,” the judges observed, adding that if benefits are denied on “a flimsy ground not encapsulated by any statutory provision”, there is “no fetter on the part of the Court to impose fine”.The two-judge bench also observed that the disciplinary proceedings neither culminated in any penalty nor continued after Barik’s superannuation in accordance with law. It noted that the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act had already held the bank’s action to be contrary to the statute, a finding that remained undisturbed even in the statutory appeal.“The gratuity is not a bounty nor a bonanza to the employees, but it is a resurrection of their services rendered to the organisation and paid as a deferred salary,” the bench said.The judges ruled that withholding gratuity without statutory authority “cannot receive the blessings of the Court” and that “the employer should be dealt sternly with iron hand”.The judges further remarked that it was inclined to impose an additional fine since the appeal itself lacked merit. However, it refrained from doing so after being informed that the gratuity amount, along with interest, had already been paid to the retired employee.Advocate Pradipta Kishore Bhuyan represented Barik.
