The case revolves around Mr. Handa’s entitlement to pensionary benefits after being removed from service due to gross misconduct. The Supreme Court reviews the High Court’s decision which upheld Mr. Handa’s claim for pension, relying on a previous appellate authority order that stipulated he would receive “terminal benefits” despite his removal. The document discusses the interpretation of “terminal benefits” in the context of the Bipartite Settlement (Clause 6(b)) and UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Regulation 22), referencing the precedent set in Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the lower courts’ decision that Mr. Handa is entitled to his pension.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(p) and Section 18(1), 11A – Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, Rule 58 – UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regulation 22 – Bipartite Settlement, 19.10.1966, Clause 6(b) , 19(5)(c) – Industrial Dispute – Removal from service – Pensionary benefits – Claim for – Initial penalty imposed on the respondent by the appellant was dismissal from service with immediate effect after having been found guilty of gross misconduct as per Clause 19.5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement – Appellate authority modified the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority by substituting the penalty of dismissal from service by removal from service with terminal benefits – Respondent raised an industrial dispute which culminated in an award dated 13.02.2004 – As per this award, Labour Court had invoked the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and substituted the penalty of removal from service with terminal benefits by the penalty of stoppage of four increments for one year with further direction for reinstatement in service with 75 percent back wages – This award of the Labour Court failed to stand judicial scrutiny as learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the same which decision was affirmed by the Division Bench in letters patent appeal – This sequence of events demonstrates that the modified penalty as imposed by the appellate authority attained finality as this appellate order was not questioned by the appellant – Learned senior counsel for the appellant in the course of her submissions placed reliance on Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 which provided forfeiture of service on resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits – Interplay of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 was examined by this Court in S.K. Kool and both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had followed the aforesaid decision of this Court – Learned Single Judge noted that respondent had submitted his option for pension on 05.10.2010 – Learned Single Judge also held that objection of the appellant to the claim of pension by the respondent was without any basis in as much as the appellate authority had specifically held that respondent would be entitled to receive terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered – This order of the appellate authority has attained finality – Therefore, it was held that respondent was entitled to receive pension in view of the order passed by the appellate authority – This view of the learned Single Judge has been endorsed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment – Do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench while exercising our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 17 to 22)
Uco Bank V. Vijay Kumar Handa
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 442: (DoJ 03-04-2025)
