9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant to process the case of the respondent for pension and to release the pensionary dues to him expeditiously. 4. Relevant facts may be briefly noted. 5. At the relevant point of time, respondent was serving as a Clerk in the appellant Bank. A charge memo dated 12.10.1998 issued by the disciplinary authority was served upon him, charging him with having indulged in acts of gross misconduct within the premises of the Gurmandi Branch, Jalandhar of the appellant Bank. As per the allegations, on 21.09.1998, at around 05:15 PM, respondent alongwith another employee of the same branch Shri R.N. Chopra had assaulted Shri J.B. Bansal, an officer of the appellant Bank posted at the Raipur-Rasulpur Branch, in the cabin of the senior manager of the Gurmandi Branch. Officials of the branch had to intervene to separate Shri Bansal from the respondent and Shri Chopra. 5.1. Before the respondent could file his response to the charge memo, the disciplinary authority decided to institute an enquiry. In this connection, Shri H.S. Saini, an officer in Scale III, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Shri R.K. Kakkar, an officer in Scale II, was appointed as the Presiding Officer vide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefits for the period of service he had rendered. It was clarified that removal from service would not be a disqualification for the future employment of the respondent. 7. On an industrial dispute being raised at the instance of the respondent, the central government referred the same to the Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum- Labour Court, Jalandhar (for short 'Labour Court' hereinafter). The question referred was whether the action of the Bank in dismissing the respondent from service was legal and just. The supplementary question was as to what relief the concerned workman (respondent) would be entitled to and from which stage. Labour Court after hearing the matter passed an award dated 13.02.2004 opining that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct by taking into consideration the involvement of the respondent in the alleged incident. Invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly, 'the Industrial Disputes Act' hereinafter), the Labour Court substituted the penalty of dismissal/removal from service with the penalty of stoppage of four increments for one year. Respondent was directed to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in Hardial Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda 2012 SCC Online P&H 8059 and thereafter affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the letters patent appeal of the appellant was dismissed. 12. Hence the present appeal. 13. This Court by order dated 03.07.2017 had issued notice and stayed the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2017. When the matter was heard on 23.04.2024, leave was granted. 14. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that respondent was not punished under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in applying the case of S.K. Kool (supra). That apart, the decision in S.K. Kool (supra) was rendered in a different factual context. The employee in the said case had opted for pension before the penalty of removal from service was imposed on him. In the present case, respondent never opted for pension. Therefore, S.K. Kool (supra) is clearly distinguishable in so far facts and circumstances of the present case is concerned. 14.1. Learned senior counsel further submits that respondent was not entitled to pension in as much as he did not fulfil the requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 17. A Bipartite Settlement was arrived at between the Indian Banks' Association and the Banks' Workmen Union on 19.10.1966. This settlement was arrived at under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. This settlement therefore has a statutory backing and is binding on the parties. Respondent was charged with committing an act of gross misconduct as defined in Clause 19.5(c) of the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement which was proved by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. On 10.04.2002, a further settlement was arrived at between the Indian Banks' Association, representing the management on the one hand, and the workmen represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association, National Confederation of Bank employees and Indian National Bank Employees' Federation on the other hand. Pursuant thereto, Clause 6(b) was inserted in the said Bipartite Settlement providing for one of the penalties which may be imposed on a delinquent employee found guilty of gross misconduct. Clause 6(b) reads as follows: 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995. Regulation 22(1) of the aforesaid regulations reads thus: 22. Forfeiture of service.-(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. 20.1. According to her, in view of Regulation 22, the respondent would not be entitled to pension. 21. Interplay of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 was examined by this Court in S.K. Kool (supra) and after due consideration answered the same in the following manner : 13. .......From a plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. If we accept this submission, no employee removed from service in any event would be entitled for pensionary benefits. But the fact of the matter is that the Bipartite Settlement provides for removal from service with pensionary benefits "as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
