Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10956 OF 2013

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17054 OF 2009)

BANK OF BARODA

…. APPELLANT

Versus

S.K. KOOL(D)THROUGH LRS.AND ANR.

…. RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

S.K. Kool, respondent no. 1 herein (since

deceased), was working as a clerk with the

petitioner, Bank of Baroda and while working as

such after a departmental inquiry, as a measure of

punishment, visited with the penalty of ‘removal

from service with superannuation benefits as would

be due otherwise and without disqualification from

future employment’.

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

S.K. Kool, hereinafter referred to as ‘the

employee’, made a request for leave encashment,

which was declined by the petitioner Bank of

Baroda, hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’,

on the ground that ‘where cessation of service

takes place on account of employee’s resignation or

his dismissal/termination/compulsory retirement

from the Bank’s service, all leaves to his

credit lapse.’

The employee laid claim for pensionary benefits

but the same was also declined. However, the

employer advised the employee to ask for sanction

of compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds

of the pension which would have been admissible to

him otherwise. A dispute was raised and the

competent Government referred the dispute for

adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The

dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal,

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, reads

as follows:

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

“Whether the action of the

management of Bank of Baroda in

denying pension and encashment of

leave to Shri S.K. Kool is legal

and justified? If not, what

relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?”

The employee filed his statement of claim and

so did the employer. The employee founded his

claim by relying on the order of punishment itself

which, according to him, entitles him the

superannuation benefit. It was resisted by the

employer on the ground that such employees who are

removed from the service of the Bank are not

entitled to pension. The Tribunal considered the

rival plea, upheld the contention of the employee

and passed an award in his favour, and while doing

so, observed as follows:

“12. Therefore, in view of the

facts and circumstances and

settled legal position, the

tribunal feels no hesitation in

holding that the action of the

opposite party bank in denying

superannuation benefits to the

workman is neither legal nor

justified. Accordingly it is held

that the workman is entitled for

his superannuation benefits under

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

the

final

orders

of

the

disciplinary authority passed on

19.09.03 and any other order

passed by some other officer

denying superannuation benefits

stands set aside. Accordingly the

workman is held entitled for all

termination benefits like pension,

leave encashment, gratuity and

commutation of pension subject to

adjustment of any amount paid

under these heads to the workman.”

The employer assailed the aforesaid award in a

writ petition but the same has been dismissed by

the High Court, inter alia, observing as follows:

“It is true that both the

provisions have to be harmonized.

What logically follows from bare

reading

of

the

aforesaid

provisions

is

that

the

disciplinary authority has the

competence to inflict punishment

of removal from service with a

condition that such removal from

service shall not in any way

result in forfeiture of pensionary

benefits to which the workman

concerned is otherwise eligible.

Only simple reading of the words

“AS WOULD BE DUE OTHERWISE” would

mean that irrespec