JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent herein was an employee of the Bank of Baroda, the appellant herein. On 14th December, 2000, the Bank introduced the `Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001' (hereinafter referred to as "BOBEVRS-2001"). Under the said Scheme, along with terminal benefits pension in terms of the Bank of Baroda (Employees Pension) Regulations, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Regulations, 1995") was to be provided to employees who opted for the VRS Scheme. The said Scheme provided that in order to be eligible to opt for the Scheme all permanent employees of the Bank working in India or India-based Officers working abroad, who as on 31.3.2001 would have completed/ would be completing minimum 15 years of service OR who would have completed/would be completing 40 years of age would be eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the BOBEVRS-2001.

3. Claiming to be eligible under the Scheme, having completed 40 years of age, the respondent applied for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme. At the relevant point of time the respondent had completed only 13 years of service in the appellant Bank. However, the respondent's application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank and he was paid all retiral benefits applicable to him under the Scheme, but his request for grant of pension in addition to the other retiral benefits was not acceded to by the Bank. After retiring from service on the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement, the respondent filed an application before the Central Labour Commissioner, Ajmer, on 24.10.2001 claiming pension with effect from 1.4.2001. The appellant Bank opposed the claim of pension contending that in terms of Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the respondent was not entitled to pension. As the reconciliation process failed, the dispute as to whether the refusal of the Bank to provide pensionary benefits to the respondent after voluntary retirement, was legal and justified, was referred to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Jodhpur.

4. On 21.10.2003 when the matter was fixed before the Tribunal, the Bank went unrepresented and subsequently the Tribunal by its Award dated 23.10.2003 allowed the respondent's claim and directed the appellant to pay the respondent pension according to the Pension Regulations, 1995, with effect from 1.4.2001.

5. It appears that before the Tribunal passed its award on 23rd October, 2003, the Government of India made certain amendments to Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, which were adopted by the Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank in its meeting held on 17th March, 2003. The said amended Regulation was published in the Gazette of India on 2nd January, 2004 and provides as follows:-

"28. Superannuation Pension. Superannuation Pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of Superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or settlements. Provided that, with effect from 1st day of September, 2000 Pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of

Superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government."

Regulation 28 as it stood prior to the aforesaid amendment is as follows:-

"28. Superannuation Pension - Superannuation Pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of Superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or settlements."

6. Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the appellant-Bank filed a Writ Petition before the High Court on 24th January, 2004, and the same was registered as S.B.C.W. No.5766 of 2004. The respondent-employee also filed a Writ Petition before the High Court in 2005 for implementation of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the same was registered as C.W.P