Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1992 (RAJ)

Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti v. Union of India

2011-09-15

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition filed by the petitioners, following relief is prayed for : "(a) Issue Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to implement the settlement dated 29.10./93 entered into between the Indian Bank Association and Trade Union of the Sponsor Bank to the petitioners who are the retired employees of Regional Rural Bank. (b) Pass any such further order and issue any such directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the special circumstances of the petitioners' case. (c) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded," 2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. M. Mridual, assisted by Mr. Vinay Jain, submits that a bi-partite settlement was made on 29.10.1993 between management of 58 nationalized Banks and workmen of all India Bank Employees Association which is Annex.3 on the record and he said settlement was implemented by 58 Banks. However, the said settlement was not implemented for sponsored Banks of the 58 Banks. The petitioner Samiti and retired employees of sponsored Banks of other States preferred writ petitions directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the petition filed by the petitioner Samiti was registered as Writ Petition (C) No.199/2005, Gramin Bank Pensioners Samiti vs. Union of India, in which, on 9.5.2005 Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order that the petitioners may approach the High Court for redressal of their grievance raised in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that not only the petitioners' association but the other associations of other States including the All India Rural Banks Employees' Association of Kolkata and others preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but Hon'ble Apex Court while declining to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India granted opportunity to approach the respective High Court for redressal of the grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in identical situation a petition was filed at Karnataka High Court by All India Regional Rural Banks Association and Others, the same was registered as Writ Petition No. 20034 of 2003 (S-RES), in which, final adjudication has been made by the High Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 22.3.2011 whereby directions for implementation of the memorandum of settlement dated 29.10.1993, which is Annex.3 to this writ petition has been made. Further, it is pointed out by Senior Advocate Mr. Further, it is pointed out by Senior Advocate Mr. Mridul that as per verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank vs. Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and Others, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 101 , the respondents are under obligation to grant all the benefit of bi-partite settlement to employees of sponsored Banks also, therefore, the controversy in this petition is also identical with regard to implementation of the settlement dated 29.10.1993, therefore, same directions as passed by the Karnataka High Court may also given in this writ petition. 5. Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate submits that as per judgment of the Supreme Court the respondents are under obligation to implement the settlement dated 29.10.1993 which is arrived at in between 58 nationalized Banks and Union of India for the employees of sponsored Banks of the State of Rajasthan also. While inviting attention of this Court towards the decision of the Karnataka High Court upon similar issue it is argued that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of South Malabar Gramin Bank (supra), therefore, the same directions may be issued to the respondents to implement the settlement dated 29.10.1993 for retired employees of the sponsored Banks of Rajasthan State also. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner association is representing the employees of the sponsored Banks and settlement Annex.3 dated 29.10.1993 was arrived at in between nationalized Banks and Union of India, therefore, petitioners cannot claim parity for implementation of the award dated 29.10.1993 for the employees of the sponsored Banks. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment dated 22.3.2011, rendered by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.20034 of 2003 (S-RES), so also, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank's case, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 101 and the judgment of All India Regional Rural Banks Officers Federation and Others vs. Government of India, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 2559. 8. After perusing aforesaid judgments, I am in full agreement with the adjudication made by the Karnataka High Court in the case of All India Regional Rural Banks Employees Association (supra). 8. After perusing aforesaid judgments, I am in full agreement with the adjudication made by the Karnataka High Court in the case of All India Regional Rural Banks Employees Association (supra). While following the judgment of the Supreme Court in South Malabar Gramin Bank's case (supra) and the case of All India Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation's case (supra) for implementation of the memorandum of settlement in respect of employees of the sponsored Banks, following directions were given in para 6 of the judgment dated 22.3.2011 : "6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the endeavour undertaken by the National Industrial Tribunal and the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court was to be restricted to brining about parity in the pay, allowances and other benefits of the employees of RRBs on par with the employees of the sponsor banks. It necessarily would include pensionary benefits as well. It is patent that the employees of the RRBs would derive greater benefit if there is a pension scheme in lieu of the Employees Contributory Provident Fund and the Scheme thereunder. But, this would require the Central Government to pass an order apart from the modalities of any such pension scheme being worked out by the management of the RRBs. In the present scenario, when the management is reluctant to formulate any such scheme and pleads that there is no obligation on its part to extend such benefit to the employees of the RRBs, it would be necessary for this Court to direct the Central Government to pass appropriate orders in order to set right the anomaly pertaining to the retirement benefits, availed by the RRBs vis-à-vis the employees of the sponsor banks. It would certainly be justified if the RRBs are exempted from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 to bring about parity in pension and other benefits. The effort of the National Industrial Tribunal and the repeated directions of the apex Court would not be completely implemented unless this is also carried out. It would certainly be justified if the RRBs are exempted from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 to bring about parity in pension and other benefits. The effort of the National Industrial Tribunal and the repeated directions of the apex Court would not be completely implemented unless this is also carried out. Insofar as the claim for computer increment is concerned, the objection by the respondents to the same on the ground that in terms of a Circular of the year 1993, since the NABARD was of the view that a computer programme in RRBs is planned for 50% of its branches and that infrastructure available in all the branches is poor and inadequate cannot be a ground for denial of the same. The respondent - bank has not indicated the reason why it has not extended the increment even after the admitted circumstance that there is full computerization of the bank since May 2007 and that it has extended the benefit of computer allowance while denying the computer increment from that date. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for receiving the benefit of computer increment which was provided to the employees of the sponsor banks." 9. In this view of the matter no discrimination can be made by this Court to deny the said benefit to the member employees of the petitioner Samiti, therefore, while following the said judgment and verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given in South Malabar Gramin Bank's case (supra) this writ petition deserves acceptance. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take steps to ensure that the modalities are worked out for a pension scheme in line with the pension scheme formulated for the employees of the 58 nationalized banks in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition with such changes as would be appropriate and keeping in line with the present circumstances, including such other relevant criteria that could be reasonably agreed upon in consultation with the employees. Since the petition is pending since the year 2005, the respondents are directed to expedite the process and implement the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.