BANK OF BARODA versus S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 11-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 12 S.C.R. 783 
BANK OF BARODA 
v. 
S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 11, 2013 
[CHANDRAMAUU KR. PRASAD AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
c 
Removal of bank employee from service 'witl1 
superannuation benefits' - Held: In view of Regulation 22 of 
Pension Regulations and Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement. 
such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to 
superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if visited with 
D 
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 not eligible for 
superannuation benefits under the Regulation, shall not be 
entitled to that - In the instant case, employee's heirs are 
E 
entitled to superannuation benefits with interest at the rate of 
6% per annum -
Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension 
Regulations, 1995 - Regulation22 - Bipartite Settlement -
Clause 6(b) - Costs. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
F 
Harmonious construction - Held: In case of apparent 
conflict between the two provisions, they should be so 
interpreted that the effect is given to both -
Bank of Baroda 
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 22 -
G 
Bipartite Settlement - Clause 6(b). 
Words and Phrases: 
783 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Expression "as would be due otherwise", occurring in 
Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement - Connotation of. 
Respondent no. 1, a clerk with the appellant-Bank, 
was visited with the penalty of 'removal from service with 
8 superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and 
without disqualification from future employment'. His 
claim for leave encashment and pensionary benefits was 
declined by the employer. However, the Industrial Tribunal 
held in favour of the employee and the High Court 
dismissed the petition of the employer. 
c 
In the instant appeal filed by the employer, it was 
contended for the appellant that in terms of Regulation 
22 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension 
Regulations, 1995, removal of an employee from the 
-
D service of the Bank would entail forfeiture of entire past 
service and, consequently, he would not be entitled to 
pensionary benefits. It was submitted that clause 6(b) of 
Bipartite Settlement which provided that an employee 
found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from 
E service with superannuation benefits, would not 
supersede Regulation 22, which was statutory in nature. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In 2002, a Bipartite Settlement was signed 
F by the Indian Banks' Association and the Banks' 
workmen's Union with regard to disciplinary action 
procedure. Various punishments have been provided 
under the Bipartite Settlement, Clause 6(b) whereof 
prescribes that an employee found guilty of gross 
G misconduct may be removed from service with 
superannuation benefits and without disqualification 
from future employment. The employee undisputedly has 
been visited with the penalty in terms of the Bipartite 
Settlement. [paras 10-11] [790-C-D, F] 
H 
BANK OF BARODA v. S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH 
785 
LRS. 
1.2. From a plain reading of Regulation 22 of the 
A 
Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, 
it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail 
forfeiture of his entire past service, and, consequently 
such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary 
benefits. Thus, no employee removed from service in any 
B 
event would be entitled for pensionary benefits. But the 
fact of the matter is that the Bipartite Settlement provides 
for removal from service with pensionary benefits "as 
would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations 
prevailing at the relevant time". The consequence of this c 
·construction would be that the words quoted shall 
become a dead letter. Such a construction has to be 
avoided. [para 13] [791-A-C] 
1.3. The Regulation does not entitle every employee 
to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is D 
provided under Chapter II of the Regulations whereas 
Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee 
who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and 
fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in 
terms of Article 14 of the Regulation. Therefore, the 
E 
expression "as would be due otherwise" in Clause 6(b) 
of Bipartite Settlement would mean only such employees 
who are eligible and have put in minimum num

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.