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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more