HR & INDUSTRIAL RLATIONS
No. HR&IR/CIR/2015-16/MI/1852
December 23, 2015
Chief Executives of Member banks which are parties to Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002.
Dear Sir,
Special Leave Petition No. 17054/2009 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court – Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool – Supreme Court decision dated 11.12.13 against the Bank – Review Petition (C) No. 2344/2014 & (2) SLP No. 11443/2014 Bank of Baroda vs. G. Sukla before the Supreme Court.
We refer to our Circular No. CIR/HR&IR/KU/MI/1004 dated 30.6.2015 regarding treatment of cases in which an employee who is imposed with punishment of “removed with superannuation benefits” under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002/27.5.2002 on “Disciplinary Action & Procedure therefor for Workmen” in view of the above captioned Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement. Member banks were advised to consider implementation of the said judgement in such cases.
We have been receiving queries from member banks seeking clarifications as to whether the award staff employees who are imposed with punishment of “compulsorily retired” (6c) and “discharged from service” (6d) are also covered under the above judgement.
We have examined the matter and are of the view that employees imoposed with punishment of “removal”, “compulsory retirement” and “Discharge” as per Clause 6 (b) (c) and (d) of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 are to be considered with superannuation benefits, i.e. Pension and/or PF and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
K. Unnikrishnan
Deputy Chief Executive
***************************************************************
Backround Information:
UFBU signed an exclusive Settlement on 10-4-2002 containing the provisions on Disciplinary Action and Procedure thereof. Under this Settlement, for proved Gross Misconduct, the following punishments have been prescribed under Clause 6.
- 6 (b) be removed from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and / or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or
- 6 (c) be compulsorily retired with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and / or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or
- 6 (d) be discharged from service with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and / or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment; or
However, under the plea that Pension Regulations does not contain the above similar provisions, employees who were inflicted with the above punishments were being denied pension.
5 comments:
Anything for Resigned Officers who are denied pension?
It is quite funny to read the circular of IBA on the issue of pension to Compulsorily retired employees.When the Apex court itself has given the verdict in favour of the employees,where does the question arise in examining the verdict and advising the Banks. IBA should understand that it is not above Judiciary
THIS IS ONLY THE MOST UNFORTUNATE THING HAPPENING IN DEMOCRATIC INDIA THAT BANKS AND IBA ARE DISHONOURING ,DISRESPECTING APEX COURT AND EVEN FIRST CITIZEN OF INDIA BY CONFUSING AND MISINTERPRATING GOVT GAZZETS AND DOPTs
Are officer not employee. To my understanding pension , workman and officer both have pension entitlement as per employees pension regulations. If so then why officer unions are silent and not taking up this issue or filing a contempt of court for officer who resigned or were removed on completion of 10 years of service.
or officers are different class of humans and do not need to support their life of families.
If unions do not intend to take up this matter then it is matter of chance , some one from their herd is removed then all of sudden this will become most important but too late as time is changing fast.
in some of the banks for crs employees they are giving 2/3 pension only.as per this supreme court order they should be given full pension .
as far as pf optees they are giving full amount of employers contribution. then giving 2/3 pension is faulty and the crs employees should be given full pension only. any body please clarify
Post a Comment