COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES, STATE BANK OF INDIA vs ANIL VIJ

THE Committee of Trustees, State Bank of India, Employees Provident Fund and the State Bank of India appeal against the order of the District Forum directing the payment of the cheque amount of Rs. 51,330/- with ancillary reliefs to the respondent. Since this appeal could not be seriously pressed by Shri J.K. Verma, a senior official of the appellants who appeared on their behalf, it suffices to notice the facts with the utmost brevity.

THE respondent Anil Vij in his complaint had alleged that he was an employee of the Mall Road Branch of State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. when he resigned on the 27th of May, 1990. During the service, he had contributed in all a sum of Rs. 51,330/- to the Provident Fund account which consequently accrued to him. He moved an application for the refund of the said amount and a cheque of Rs. 51,330/- drawn upon the appellant Bank was duly issued. However, when he presented the said cheque for payment, the appellant-Bank instead of honoring the same, retained the said cheque and pressurized him to pay the Housing Loan which the respondent had taken during the service in full. THE complainant''s firm plea was that as and when the instrument was presented the appellants were only bound to pay the cheque amount and could not withhold the payment of the provident fund for any collateral reasons. Finding unable to get redress the respondent then preferred the complaint. Appellant No. 1 neither filed its written statement nor was represented before the District Forum and was proceeded ex-parte. On behalf of the appellant-Bank, written statement was filed raising a number of preliminary objections to which a reference becomes unnecessary. On merits, it was admitted that a cheque for Rs. 51,330/- was duly issued and presented for payment. However, the primal plea was that the same was not honored on the ground that a sum of Rs. 1,09,000/-with interest was outstanding against the respondent. It was, however, admitted that the house of the complainant stood mortgaged against the said loan and the claim was that the bank had acted within its powers in refusing to honor the cheque. In the replication filed by the respondent, he reiterated his pleas in the complaint.

No oral evidence was led by the parties and the adjudication was sought on the basis of pleadings and the documents placed on the record the authenticity of which was not challenged. The District Forum repelled the preliminary objections in detail and after an exhaustive discussion of the matter in a very considered order came to the conclusion that the Bank had illegally withheld the payment of Rs. 51,330/- due to the respondent under the Provident Fund. Relief was consequently granted in the terms noticed at the very outset.

MR. J.K. Verma, who represented the appellants was singularly unable to lay any challenge worth the name to the order under appeal. The solitary submission made was that the procedure of the Bank entitled it to withhold the cheque presented to it for payment and the virtual dishonoring of the same was not a "deficiency" in service. In this context, it is perhaps worthy of notice that as many as three adjournments were granted to the appellants for projecting their case. On the proceeding date of hearing, a last opportunity was duly granted. We are unable to find the least modicum of merit in the solitary and fragmentary submission made on behalf of the appellants. A part from baldly saying that the procedure of the Bank authorizes the appellants to withhold the payment, Mr. Verma could not cite any chapter or verse whatsoever in support of the said plea. No rule, regulation or an administrative instruction on the point could at all be pointed out. Indeed in the end, Mr. Verma had to fairly concede his inability to pinpoint anything worth the name for assailing the order under appeal.

IN the aforesaid situation, it is patently wasteful in a judgment of affirmance to tread the same ground again which the District Forum has very ably traversed in its considered order. It suffices to mention that in the absence of any challenge and even on an independent appraisal thereof, we are inclined to affirm the findings, rationale and the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum. For the foregoing reasons, we would affirm the order under appeal of the District Forum and dismiss this appeal with costs which are assessed at modest sum of Rs. 500/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.