UCO BANK AND ORS. versus SANWAR MAL

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 11-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

I 126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. An employee can resign at any point of time but in the 
case of retirement, he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation 
or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. 
On resignation and retirement, there is severance of employment but in 
service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. The 
Pension Scheme in question was a second Retiral Benefit Scheme which 
B covered only the retirees, as the credit balance to their provident fund 
account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. 
Resignation brings about complete cessation of master and servant 
relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for 
the purpose of grant of retiral benefits in view of the past service. 
C 
(1133-C-E] 
1.2. Acceptance of the resignation is dependent upon discretion of 
the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of 
regulations/rules framed by the Bank. Resignation can be tendered 
irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary 
D retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retiral 
. benefits. Further, there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting 
resignation vis-a-vis voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof. Since 
the pension regulations disqualify an employee, who has resigned, from 
claiming pension, the respondent cannot claim membership of the fund. 
E Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of employees who have resigned 
from service and for those who have been dismissed or removed from 
service., Regulation 22 does not make an arbitrary and unreasonable 
classific'ation repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India by 
·keeping out such class of employees. Regulation 22 is not in the nature of 
penalty. It only disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from 
F becoming a member of the Fund. The pension scheme only provides for a 
second retiral benefit. The pension scheme only provides for an avenue 
for investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings 
and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of an eligibility 
criteria the scheme disentitles such category of employees out of it. 
G 
[1133-F-H; 1134-A-C) 
Reserve Bank of India and Anr. v. Cecil Dennis Solomon and Anr., 
[2003] 10 Scale 449, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3192of1999. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
-
---· 
UCO BANK v. SANWAR MAL [KHARE, CJ.] 
1127 
-
High Court in S.A. No. 1398 of 1997. 
A 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 607 and 1506 of 2003. 
A.K. Raina, R.D. Upadhyay for the appellants in C.A. No. 3192/99. 
B 
----
Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora and Ms. Suruchi Agarwal for 
the appellants in C.A. Nos. 607 and 1503/2003. 
Raj Kumar Mahajan and Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni for the Respondent in 
C.A. No. 3192/99. 
C 
Bhargava V. Desai, Abhinav Vashisht, Ms. Rachi Vashisht, Ms. Priya, 
Sanjeev Kr. Singh and Pradeep Kr. Malik for the Respondent in C.A. No. 
607/2003. 
Ramesh P. Bhatt and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent in C.A. No. D 
1506/2003. 
L. Nageswara Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. 
Sushma Suri for Union of Irn;lia in C.A. Nos. 607 & 1506/2003. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
· · V.N. KHARE, CJ. Since common question of law is involved in these 
appeals, one at the instance of UCO Bank; second, Oriental Bank of 
Commerce; and the third, Bank of India, we propose to decide them by a 
common Judgment. 
E 
F 
For the sake of convenience, we are noticing the facts asserted in Civil 
Appeal No.3192of1999. The respondent- Sanwar Mal was appointed as a 
Class-IV employee in UCO Bank on 29.12.1959 and was promoted to class-
III post in 1980. On 25.2.1988, he resigned after giving one month's notice. 
He accepted his provident fund without protest. On 29.10.1993, a settlement 
was arrived at under section 2(P) and section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes G 
Act; 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 
between Indian banks' Association (hereinafter referred to as "IBA") 
representing the managements of banks on one hand and All India Bank 
Employees' Association representing the workmen. Pursuant to the said 
settlement, the IBA agreed to introduce pension scheme in banks in lieu of H 
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A 

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