The General Manager (P) Vs the President, Indian Bank Employees Union

THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) INDIAN BANK, ZONAL OFFICE 4^TH FLOOR, (EAST WING) RAHEJA TOWERS, NO.26-27 M .G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER / ZONAL MANAGER ZONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE PRESIDENT, INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C/O INDIAN BANK, 10, K.G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009

¶18

M. SUNDARA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGE: MAJOR R/AT MUDDAHALLI, NAVILUR POST NANJANGUD TALUK

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25456-DB WP No. 2316 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MYSORE DISTRICT-501 301

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VILAS RANGANATH DATAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 23.04.2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT BANGALORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G IN CR NO.10/2014.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Bank impugning the award dated 23.04.2019 passed in C.R.No.10/2014 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court at Bengaluru (for brevity, 'the CGIT').

¶30

The respondent was employed as a clerk-cumshroff in Mandya Branch of the Bank. He voluntarily left his job with effect from 03.02.2006 after rendering 27 years long service in the Bank. The Bank has issued notice to the

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25456-DB WP No. 2316 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

respondent on 29.08.2005, which was not replied by the respondent.

¶34

Placing reliance on Clause 33 of Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, the appellant/Bank held that the respondent could not be entitled for benefit of his past services as he had voluntarily given up his employment.

¶35

The respondent employee raised an industrial dispute and therefore, the Central Government vide Order No.L-12011/3/2014 IR(B-II) dated 04.06.2014 exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) Sub-Section (1) and SubSection 2(A) of the Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the CGIT:

¶36

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank over unjust denial of pension to Shri M. Sundara, Clerk-cum-shroff of Mandra Branch, retired from the services of the Bank on voluntary cessation is justified? If not, to what relief the aggrived workman Shri M. Sundara is entitled to?"

¶37

The CGIT by the impugned award has accepted the reference and directed the Bank to implement the benefits of

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25456-DB WP No. 2316 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 to the respondent with effect from 03.06.2006 and also directed that the accrued pension amount shall be calculated along with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. with effect from 03.06.2006 and be paid to him within a period of 60 days from the date of publication of the award.

¶41

Sri. Udaya Shankar Rai P., learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank submits that the CGIT has misdirected itself in ignoring Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005, which would provide for forfeiture of service among other things in case the employee voluntarily gives up his/her employment. He therefore, submits that the impugned award needs to be set aside and the petition be allowed.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 has been amended and the amended clause would provide that the employees who have ceased to be in service of the Bank under voluntary cessation would be eligible for PF, gratuity pension and leave encashment benefits, if otherwise eligible.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25456-DB WP No. 2316 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

It is not in dispute that before the respondent had voluntarily given up the employment had rendered 27 years long service without any blemish. The pension in the bank/appellant is governed under the Indian Bank Pension Regulation Act, 1995. The Regulation 22 of the Indian Bank Pension Regulation Act, 1995 provides that in case of resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of employee from service of the bank, it would entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently, the employee would not be qualified for pensionary benefits.

¶46

One another aspect of the matter is that no disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent and as such, denying him pensionary benefit after he has given up voluntarily his service would be highly improper, particularly, when Clause 33 of the Bipartite Settlement has been amended, which provides that in case of giving up of services voluntarily, if an employee is otherwise eligible for pensionary benefit, he should be given the benefit. This amended Clause 33 has to be given effect to despite the pension regulations.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:25456-DB WP No. 2316 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

We, therefore, are of the view that his voluntary cessation from the employment should be treated as voluntary retirement and as he is eligible for pension inasmuch as he has rendered 27 years of long service in the Bank, we do not find that there is any error in the impugned award passed by the CGIT. Thus, we dismiss this writ petition and affirm the order passed by the CGIT.

¶51

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶52

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶53

CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

The General Manager (P) v. the President, Indian Bank Employees Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Manager (P) v. the President, Indian Bank Employees Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Ragini Bhartari Vs Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre of Software Technology)

Jyothi Vs the Divisional Controller

Channegowda Vs Singrigowda

Sri. Srikantaiah Vs Karnataka Upa Lokayukta-I

M/S Bengal Lamps Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Shivashankar Rao Vs the Managing Director