Summary
A bank clerk found guilty of gross misconduct was dismissed, but the appellate authority modified the penalty to removal from service with entitlement to terminal benefits for the service rendered. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction to process his pension, holding that the appellate order had attained finality once the Labour Court award substituting a lesser penalty was set aside, and that under the binding decision in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool an employee otherwise eligible under the Pension Regulations who is removed with superannuation benefits under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement is entitled to pension notwithstanding Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.
Issues
- Whether an employee removed from service for gross misconduct, with the appellate authority holding him entitled to terminal benefits for the service rendered, is entitled to pension despite Regulation 22(1) of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, which provides that removal entails forfeiture of past service.
- Whether the decision in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool, reconciling Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement with Regulation 22, applied although the Bank contended that the respondent was not punished under Clause 6(b) and had not opted for pension before removal.
- Whether the appellate authority's order of removal with terminal benefits had attained finality so as to bind the Bank.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(p) and 18(1) read with Rule 58, Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Bipartite Settlement of 19.10.1966 between the Indian Banks' Association and the bank workmen's union was arrived at under these provisions, giving it statutory backing and making it binding on the parties; Clause 19.5(c) (gross misconduct) and Clause 6(b) (removal with superannuation benefits, inserted by the settlement of 10.04.2002) therefore govern the penalty. (¶¶ 17, 17.1)
- Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Labour Court had invoked Section 11A to substitute removal with stoppage of four increments and reinstatement with 75% back wages; the High Court, in the earlier round, held that the power ought not to have been invoked and set the award aside, which the Court treated as restoring the appellate authority's modified penalty. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 19)
- Regulation 22(1), UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995The Bank relied on Regulation 22(1), under which resignation, dismissal, removal or termination entails forfeiture of entire past service and disqualifies the employee from pension. Following S.K. Kool, the Court held that the regulation must be harmonised with Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement: an employee who is otherwise eligible for pension under the Regulations and is removed with superannuation benefits remains entitled to them, otherwise the words 'as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations' in Clause 6(b) would be a dead letter. (¶¶ 20, 20.1, 21, 22)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaFinding S.K. Kool binding and the Single Judge and Division Bench to have followed it, the Court saw no compelling reason to interfere with their concurrent findings in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. (¶ 22)
Held
- Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, inserted by the settlement of 10.04.2002, permits an employee found guilty of gross misconduct to be removed from service with superannuation benefits (pension and/or provident fund and gratuity) as would otherwise be due under the prevailing rules or regulations, and without disqualification from future employment. (¶¶ 17, 17.1)
- Where the appellate authority substituted dismissal with removal from service with terminal benefits for the service rendered, and the Bank did not challenge that order but only the Labour Court award that had further reduced the penalty, the setting aside of that award by the High Court left the appellate authority's modified penalty in place; that order attained finality and binds the Bank. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22)
- Following Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool, Regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations (forfeiture of past service on removal) and Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement must be read harmoniously so that effect is given to both: employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulations and are removed with superannuation benefits are entitled to those benefits, while employees who have not put in the qualifying service are not. A construction under which no removed employee could ever receive pension would make Clause 6(b) a dead letter. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The respondent, having submitted his option for pension on 05.10.2010 and holding an appellate order entitling him to terminal benefits, was entitled to have his pension processed; the decision in S.K. Kool being binding, the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench did not warrant interference under Article 136. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's direction to the Bank to process the respondent's case for pension in terms of the option exercised by him and release the pensionary benefits expeditiously stands. No order as to costs.