9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an employee can withdraw their application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) before acceptance by the Competent Authority. 2. Whether the employer bank can unilaterally determine the jural relationship of master and servant upon an employee's application under VRS. Summary: Issue 1: Withdrawal of Application for Voluntary Retirement The Supreme Court examined whether an employee could withdraw their application for voluntary retirement before it was accepted by the Competent Authority, despite the scheme's stipulation that the application is irrevocable. The Court held that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) constituted an "invitation to treat" rather than an offer. The applications submitted by employees were considered offers, which could be accepted or rejected by the bank. The Court emphasized that the Indian Contract Act, 1872, applies to such schemes, allowing employees to withdraw their offers before acceptance, as per Section 5 of the Act. The Court cited various precedents, including Union of India & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr., to support this view. Issue 2: Employer's Authority to Determine Jural Relationship The Court also addressed whether the employer bank could unilaterally determine the jural relationship of master and servant upon an employee's application under VRS. The Court found that the banks had secured an unfettered right to deal with the jural relationship between themselves and their employees, which was not permissible. The Court held that the scheme was contractual in nature and did not have statutory backing, thus making the provisions of the Indian Contract Act applicable. The Court concluded that the banks' discretion to accept or reject the applications and the ability to amend or rescind the scheme indicated that the scheme was not an offer but an invitation to treat. Additional Points: - The Court noted that the State Bank of India (SBI) had a slightly different scheme, which allowed for withdrawal of applications until a specified date, creating an enforceable right. - The Court rejected the argument that the scheme was ultra vires for not being laid before Parliament, stating that the laying down rule was directory, not mandatory. - The Court held that employees who accepted ex gratia payments under the scheme could not subsequently withdraw their applications, as they had waived their rights and could not approbate and reprobate. Conclusion: 1. The appeals by the Nationalised Banks were dismissed except for cases where employees had accepted part of the benefits under the scheme. 2. The appeals by the State Bank of India were allowed. 3. The appeals from the judgments of the Uttaranchal High Court were allowed, and the judgments were set aside. 4. The appeals relating to ten writ petitions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court were remitted for fresh consideration on merits. The Court directed that the parties bear their own costs.
|
