Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 182
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tapan Kumar Dutt, Tapen Sen, JJ.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
v.
CHAMA RANI TANDON.
A.P.O. No. 322/2001 with W.P. No. 1944/1999,
Decided on : February 13, 2008.
Advocate Appeared:
L. K. Gupta, Joydeep Kar - Appellant.
Pranab Kr. Datta, Samrat Sen, Ambar N. Banerjee, Arunava Ghosh, Soumya Majumdar - Respondent.
Headnote:
PENSION - APPLICABILITY - PENSION SCHEME INTRODUCED IN BANKS FOR WORKMEN IN LIEU OF EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND - RETIRED EMPLOYEES IN SERVICE ON OR AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1985 AND RETIRED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986 BUT BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1993 - ENTITLED TO PENSION SCHEME - PNB (EMPLOYEES) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 - APPLICABILITY - RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. (HCB) MERGED WITH PNB - ENTITLED TO PENSION UNDER SCHEME.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a retired employee of HCB, which merged with PNB, claimed pension under the Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) between the Indian Banks' Association and their Workmen, to which PNB was a party. The MoS provided for a pension scheme for retired employees who were in service on or after December 31, 1985 and retired on or after January 1, 1986 but before November 1, 1993. The writ petitioner fulfilled these criteria. PNB denied the pension, contending that the writ petitioner was never its employee and the Pension Regulations were inapplicable to him since he had no subsisting contract of employment on the date of merger. The writ petition was allowed by the single judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled to the pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. The Court found that the MoS was binding on PNB and that the writ petitioner was deemed to have been appointed by PNB on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the merger. The Court also held that the Pension Regulations were applicable to the writ petitioner as he fulfilled the criteria laid down therein.
Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to come under the Pension Regulations and have the benefits of the same in view of the memorandum of settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the writ petitioner was entitled to come under the Pension Regulations and have the benefits of the same in view of the memorandum of settlement. The Court relied on the following grounds: * The MoS was binding on PNB as it was a party to the settlement. * The writ petitioner was deemed to have been appointed by PNB on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to him immediately before the merger. * The Pension Regulations were applicable to the writ petitioner as he fulfilled the criteria laid down therein.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the appellant (PNB) was directed to comply with the order of the single judge immediately.
Per TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J.
Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows :
The writ petitioner, Lakshmi Narayan Tandon, was an employee of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. and he retired from his service on superannuation on September 30, 1986 and it appears that the writ petitioner's terminal benefits were paid to him by Punjab National Bank. In this Context it may be put on record that on May 24, 1985 (when the petitioner was in services with the Hindustan Commercial Bank) a moratorium had been imposed in respect of Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., Kanpur and ultimately the said Bank merged with the Punjab National Bank by virtue of a notification dated December 18, 1986. It further appears that by a Memorandum of Settlement dated October 29, 1993 between a large number of banks (through the Indian Banks' Association) and their Workmen (being represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association) a Settlement was recorded and a copy of such Memorandum of Settlement has been included in the paper book. Punjab National Bank (the appellant in the present appeal, and for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as PNB) was a party to such settlement.
It appears that the Indian Banks' Association agreed to introduce a pension scheme in banks for the workmen/employees in lieu of employers' contribution to the Provident Fund with effect from November 1, 1993. From the memorandum of settlement it will appear that amongst the various categories of employees/retired employees who would be entitled to the said pension scheme the following category of retired employees would be entitled to have the benefit of such scheme :
"Retired employees who were in service of the bank/merged bank on or after December 31, 1985 and retired on or after January 1, 1986 but before November 1, 1993 provided that such retired employees apply for it on their own on the format prescribed by each bank and refund within a period of six months reckoned from November 1, 1993, the bank's entire contribution to the provident fund including interest received qualifying service in the bank before being merged to a new bank will also be taken as service in the same bank. However, the requirement of qualifying service shall not be applicable for drawing family pension in case an employee dies while in service." (quoted from Clause 2(iii) of the said memorandum of settlement appearing at page 29 of the paper book).
In Clause 12 of the said Memorandum of Settlement the following have been provided :
"Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this settlement by December 31, 1993 for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension updating and other general conditions, etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India."
Clause 14 of the said settlement provides as follows :
"The terms and conditions hereof shall continue to govern and bind the parties until the Settlement is terminated by either party giving to the other a statutory notice as prescribed in law at the material time."
Clause 16 of the said settlement provides as follows :
"Copies of the Memorandum of Settlement will be jointly forwarded by the parties to the authorities listed in Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 so that terms and conditions thereof are binding on the parties as provided in law."
As already noted above the aforesaid Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as H.C.B.) merged with the Punjab National Bank by virtue of a notification dated December 18, 1986. It appears from the said notification that the Reserve Bank of India prepared a scheme for amalgamation of the said H.C.B. with P.N.B. and after having sent the said scheme (in draft) to the banks concerned and after having considered the suggestions and objections received in regard t
