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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more