Bank Of Baroda & Ors vs Ganpat Singh Deora

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 2 "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 3 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 4 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:-

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. No.6525 of 2005. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 7th November, 2005, on the ground that the Industrial Disputes Act is a 6 Code by itself and contains provisions for enforcement of the Award and the respondent- employee was, therefore, required to pursue his remedy accordingly. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent-workman filed Special Appeal, being No. 481 of 2005. The Division Bench of the High Court took up both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-Bank for hearing and by a common judgment dated 20th December, 2006, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank and allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the respondent-workman and directed release of pensionary benefits to the respondent within a period of two months along with interest @8% on arrears of pensionary benefits from the date of making of the Award. The said decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

20. We are, therefore, of the view that not having completed the required length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of the 1995 Regulations, the respondent was not eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, of the appellant Bank.

21. In the facts of the case and the terms of the BOBEVRS-2001 and the Pension Regulations, 1995, We are unable to agree with the interpretation of the BOBEVRS-2001 Scheme and the Pension Regulations, 1995, as has been done by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, and We, therefore, allow the appeal without costs. Consequently, the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and impugned in this appeal, in D.B. Special Appeal (W) 19 No.481 of 2005 filed by the respondent against the dismissal of his Writ Petition CWP No.6525 of 2005, are set aside. Similarly, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant-Bank is allowed along with this Appeal.

_______________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) _______________J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated:18.12.2008