TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (10) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Lakshmi Chand (since deceased) had borrowed ₹ 1450/- on April 3, 1964 and in consideration of which he executed a pronote agreeing to pay interest at 12% per annum. This suit was contested by defendants but was decreed on July 27, 1967 by Shri Shamsher Singh, Sub-Judge, with the direction that the decree would be executable against the estate inherited by the defendants from Lakshmi Chand, deceased. 3. The execution application was filed by the decree-holder seeking attachment of dues of Lakshmi Chand in the hands of Delhi Cloth & General Mills where the deceased was employed which included provident fund and gratuity. A sum of ₹ 1232/- was received from the Manager, Delhi, Cloth & General Mills, as balance of gratuity which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants were entitled to have the refund of that amount. Issues were framed on these pleadings but, however, the execution application came to be dismissed in default on April 7, 1966. Thereafter, the appellants moved an application praying that the decree-holder be required to refund the sum of ₹ 1232/- which had been received by the decree-holder under a wrongful attachment of the amount made by the Court. This application was contested by the decree-holder but was dismissed by the lower Court vide order dated February 17, 1968. The appeal filed was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated January 14, 1980 and this second appeal has been brought by the appellants seeking to set aside the orders of the lower Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hmi Chand with his employer. It is also possible that the Delhi Cloth & General Mills, the employer of Lakshmi Chand, was legally bound to pay the gratuity. Counsel for the appellants has cited Usman Abubakar Sani v. The Chief Accounts Officer, G.I.P. Railway 1943 (45) B.L.R. 816. In the said case the Rules and Regulations governing the employees of G.I.P. Railway were considered and it was found that the employer was not legally bound to pay the gratuity to its employees. It was in the discretion of the employer to pay the gratuity or not to its employee. In view of the peculiar rules governing the employees of G.I.P. Railway Company, the High Court came to the finding that till the amount is paid the same remains untouchable as the paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e employee. Section 60(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure also speaks about gratuity allowed to the pensioners meaning thereby only if the gratuity is payable to the employee then the same is not liable to be attached. If the employee is dead, obviously the gratuity cannot be deemed to be payable to the employee. If the said gratuity becomes payable to the heirs of the employees, obviously the same becomes attachable in the hands of the employer as the employer is legally bound to pay the said gratuity to the legal heirs of the employee. I am in complete agreement with the ratio laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid judgment and hold that this amount of gratuity which was attached by the court in the hands of the employ....