Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 – Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 – Clause 19.5(c) – UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Respondent was serving as a Clerk in the appellant Bank – Respondent was dismissed from the services on the charges of indulging in riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour within the premises of the Bank – Appellate Authority modified the penalty to the terminal benefits for the period of service respondent had rendered – However, the Labour Court directed respondent to be reinstated in service with 75 percent back wages and other benefits – Appellant assailed the aforesaid award before the High Court which held that the award passed by the Labour Court was totally unjustified and could not be sustained – Thereafter, respondent filed writ petition for the release of retiral benefits – The Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent would be entitled to receive the terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered – The same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Correctness:
Held: A Bipartite Settlement was arrived at between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Banks’ Workmen Union on 19.10.1966 – As per the Clause 6(b) of the said Bipartite Settlement, an employee who is found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from service but would be provided with superannuation benefits which would otherwise be due to him – Further, the penalty of removal from service would be without disqualification from future employment – In the instant case, the initial penalty imposed on the respondent by the appellant was dismissal from service with immediate effect after having been found guilty of gross misconduct as per Clause 19.5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement – Appellate authority vide the order dated 16.02.2000 modified the penalty order dated 14.12.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority by substituting the penalty of dismissal from service by removal from service with terminal benefits – The sequence of events demonstrates that the modified penalty as imposed by the appellate authority attained finality as this appellate order was not questioned by the appellant – Therefore, objection of the appellant to the claim of pension by the respondent was without any basis in as much as the appellate authority had specifically held that respondent would be entitled to receive terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered – Thus, the respondent was entitled to receive pension in view of the order passed by the appellate authority. [Paras 17.1, 18, 19, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.