Supreme Court Upholds Grant Of Pension To UCO Bank’s Employee Removed From Service, Relies On Bipartite Settlement Between Banks’ Association & Workmen Union

The appeal by special leave was directed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant and upholding the order directing the Bank to process the case of the respondent for pension and release the pensionary dues to him expeditiously.

Referring to clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement arrived at between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Banks’ Workmen Union in 1966, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained, “Thus, as per the aforesaid clause, an employee who is found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from service but would be provided with superannuation benefits which would otherwise be due to him. Further, the penalty of removal from service would be without disqualification from future employment.”

AOR Kausar Raza Faridi represented the Appellant while Advocate Tripurari Ray represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondent was serving as a clerk at the appellant bank. A charge memo was issued by the disciplinary authority charging him with having indulged in acts of gross misconduct within the premises of the Gurmandi Branch, Jalandhar of the appellant Bank. It was alleged that the respondent, along with another employee, had assaulted an officer of the appellant Bank posted at the Raipur-Rasulpur Branch, in the cabin of the senior manager of the Gurmandi Branch. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges against the respondent stood proved.

The Respondent was dismissed. He preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal from service before the appellate authority, and the penalty was modified to one of removal from service. He was held to be entitled to receive the terminal benefits for the period of service he had rendered. When the matter reached the Labour Court, the Respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with 75 percent back wages and other benefits. However, this award came to be set aside. The Respondent had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the release of his retiral benefits, and the Bank was ordered to release the pensionary benefits due to him expeditiously. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its Appeal, the Bank approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the modified penalty as imposed by the appellate authority attained finality as the appellate order was not questioned by the appellant.

Reference was made to the judgment in Bank of Baroda Vs. S.K. Kool (2014) wherein the interplay of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1995 was examined and it was observed that the Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. It was observed therein that such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulations if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulations shall not be entitled to that.

“The decision in S.K. Kool (supra) is binding on us. Therefore, we 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”, the Bench said.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: UCO Bank & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Handa [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 442)

Appearance:

Appellant:AOR Kausar Raza Faridi

Respondent: Advocate Tripurari Ray, AOR Shilpa Singh, Advocate Anirudh Ray

Click here to read/download judgment