- Case
- UCO BANK v. VIJAY KUMAR HANDA (Supreme Court of India, 03-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Industrial Disputes Act.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The judgment discusses Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stating that the Bipartite Settlement was arrived at under these sections. The judgment also discusses Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, noting that the Labour Court invoked this section to substitute the penalty of removal from service with a lesser penalty. The High Court held that the power under Section 11A ought not to have been invoked by the Labour Court.
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957: The judgment mentions Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, stating that the Bipartite Settlement was arrived at under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with this rule.
Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the respondent filed a petition under this article before the High Court seeking a direction to the appellant to release his retiral benefits. The judgment also mentions Article 136 of the Constitution of India, stating that the court was exercising its jurisdiction under this article.
UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995: The judgment discusses Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, stating that it does not permit the grant of pension to delinquent employees. Regulation 22(1) is quoted: "Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits." The interplay of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement and Regulation 22 is examined. The judgment also refers to Chapter II and Chapter IV of the Regulations, noting that Chapter II deals with application and eligibility for pensionary benefits, while Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. Regulation 14 is mentioned, stating that an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfills other conditions can qualify for pension in terms of this regulation.
Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966: The judgment extensively discusses the Bipartite Settlement. It mentions Clause 19.5(c) of the Bipartite Settlement, stating that the respondent was charged with committing an act of gross misconduct as defined in this clause. It also discusses Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, which was inserted later, providing for one of the penalties that may be imposed on a delinquent employee found guilty of gross misconduct: "(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". The judgment analyzes the interplay between Clause 6(b) and Regulation 22 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. The ninth Bipartite Settlement dated 27.04.2010 is also mentioned, stating that it did not include employees who suffered the penalty of removal from service as being eligible for pension.
