SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
Bank of Baroda and Another – Appellants
Versus
G. Palani and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 2012, C.A. Nos. 6254 of 2012, 5611 of 2012, 3026-3253 of 2013, 3257-3262 of 2013, 11205-11340 of 2014, 11342-11435 of 2014, 9533-9649 of 2014, 8357 of 2014, 4711-4800 of 2014, C.A. No. 1880 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 23773 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1881-1888 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 20661-20668 of 2012], C.A. No. 1890 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 24851 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1892-1912 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 23777-23797 of 2012], C.A. No. 1918 of 2018 [SLP (C) No. 23848 of 2012], C.A. Nos. 1919-2087 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 15640-15808 of 2013, C.A. Nos. 2088-2092 of 2018 [SLP (C) Nos. 31470-31474 of 2012]
Decided On : 13-02-2018
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of 2012 for intervention are permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to avail appropriate remedy. Applications stand dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
4. In these civil appeals, question arises with respect to the calculation of the pension on the basis of the definition of average emoluments given in Regulation 2(d) read with definition of the pay, as defined in Regulation 2(s) of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations of 1995), of the concerned Banks.
5. The dispute is with respect to the employees who retired or died while in service on or after 1.4.1998 and before 31.10.2002. The Banks are governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1970”). The regulations have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Act of 1970.
6. We are concerned in the instant cases with the officer’s class of the Banks. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are admittedly not applicable to them.
7. On 29.9.1995, the Board of Directors of the respective nationalized banks, in exercise of their powers under Section 19 of the Act of 1970, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and with prior sanction of Central Government, had notified in Gazette the aforesaid Regulations of 1995.
8. It appears that Indian Banks’ Association was negotiating with the Officers’ Association and a Joint Note had been entered into and was signed on 14.12.1999, with regard to periodical pay revision of the officers of the member Banks. Joint Note indicated the date of effect of scale of pay, dearness allowance and pension, as was agreed to be with effect from 1.4.1998. Thereafter, on 18.1.2003 amendment had been made in the definition of ‘pay’ as defined in Regulation 2(s) of the Regulations of 1995 and explanation thereof was added.
9. The dispute arose after the amendment had been made with respect to pension which would be payable to the Officers who have died or retired after 1.4.1998. Though, the definition of ‘average emoluments’ as defined in Regulation 2(d) of the Regulations of 1995, specified that the average of the pay drawn by the employee during the last ten months of his service in the Bank shall be taken as “Average Emoluments” so as to work out the pension under Regulation 35(2). Regulation 35(2) provided that the basis of the calculation to be 50% of average emoluments, as defined in Regulation 2(d). Regulation 38 of the Regulations 1995 provided the method of determination of the period of ten months for average emoluments. In the case of voluntary retirement/premature retirement, the Bank shall reckon the period of ‘preceding’ ten months for the purpose of average emoluments, from the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or prematurely retires. By virtue of the explanation (c) that was added in Regulation 2(s) of the Regulations of 1995, it was provided that the pay shall be taken to mean the pay and emoluments that had been drawn before 1.4.1998 for the category of the officers, who have retired or died on or after 1.4.1998. The provisions contained in Regulations 2(d), 2(s)(c), 35, 37 and 38,are extracted hereunder:
2. (d) “Average Emoluments” means the average of the pay drawn by an employee during the last ten months of his service in the Bank.”
“Regulation 2(s)(c):
“2(s) “Pay” includes:
(a)........
(b)........
(c) in relation to an employee who retired or died while in service on or after the 1st day of April, 1998:
(i) the basic pay including stagnation increments, if any.
(ii) all other components of pay counted for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance.
(iii) increment component of Fixed Personal Allowance.
(iv) dearness allowance thereon on the above calculated up to Index Number 1616
Grid Corporation of Orissa and Others vs. Rasananda Das
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others
U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Chairman, Railway Board and Others vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and Others
Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India
B.S. Yadav vs. State of Haryana
State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Others
Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others
D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India
Indian Ex-services League and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 104 [Para 24
D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 [Para 25
Secretary (Estt.) Railway Board and Another vs. D. Francis Paul and Others
N.S. Giri vs. Corporation of City of Mangalore and Others
P. Sadagopan vs. Food Corporation of India
Dr. Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others
K. Kuppusamy and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Manojbhai N. Shah and Others vs. Union of India and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.