Skip to main content

Supreme Court: Bank employee can claim benefits even on removal from service

The Supreme Court has ruled that a bank employee can claim pension and encashment of leave even when removed from service.

The case pertained to the denial of the claims of late S.K. Kool who was removed from service ‘as a measure of punishment’ by Bank of Baroda.

In response to a special leave petition by the bank, Justice Chandramouli Kumar Prasad ruled on December 11 that employee’s heirs are entitled to superannuation benefits.

He ordered Bank of Baroda to disburse the entire amount that the respondent is found entitled to along with interest at 6 per cent within six weeks.

He did not find any merit in the bank’s appeal and dismissed it with costs of Rs 50,000 to be paid out along with other dues.

The bank had argued that where cessation of service takes place on account of employee’s resignation or his dismissal/termination, all leaves to his credit lapse.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

The matter was initially referred to the Industrial Tribunal which had ruled that the denial of superannuation benefits was not legal or justified.

It said that the employee is entitled to all termination benefits, such as pension, leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension.

The bank contested this and approached the High Court of Allahabad. It did not get relief there either, and moved the special leave petition.

BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT

Shilpa Singh, counsel for the employee’s heirs, argued that the order of the disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment itself entitled the employee to superannuation benefits.

The court noted that the bipartite settlement containing terms and conditions of service of employees provides for removal from service with pension benefits ‘as would be due otherwise under rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time.’

“We have no doubt that employees…removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the bipartite settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits…,” it added.

Article referred: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/banking/bank-staff-can-claim-benefits-even-on-removal-from-service-apex-court/article5570654.ece

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil