UCO BANK Vs. SANWAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -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.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we are noticing the facts asserted in Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 1999. 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 months 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 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 employees contribution to the provident fund. As a consequences of the said settlement, UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the said regulations") were framed by the bank under Section 19(2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. The said regulations were published with the prior sanction of the Central Government. The respondent herein opted for the pension scheme. However, since he had resigned in 1988, the appellant-bank declined to accept his option for admitting him as a member/beneficiary of the fund. Under such circumstances, he filed a suit in Civil Court for a declaration that he was entitled to pension as provided for under the regulations. He also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to make payment of arrears along with interest. The suit was decreed and the first appeal filed against the trial Court judgment as also the second appeal filed by the appellant were dismissed. It is in this way that the appellant is in appeal before us by way of special leave.

(3.) Before coming to the arguments advanced before us, we would like to examine briefly the memorandum of settlement dated 29-10-1993 as well as the regulations. The recital to the said settlement shows that during negotiations of service conditions of workmen, the IBA agreed to introduce the pension scheme in banks for the workmen in lieu of employers contribution to the provident fund. This was pursuant to the demand made by All India Bank Employees Association representing the workmen, to introduce pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of employers contribution to contributory provident fund. As per the terms of the said settlement, the banks agreed to introduce pension as second retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund w.e.f. 1-11-1993. Under the settlement, the pension scheme was inter alia applicable to all retired employees who were in service of the bank on or after 31-12-1985 and who retired on or after 1-1-1986 but before 1-11-1993. Provided that such employees opt for the pension scheme and refund within six months from 1-11-1993 the banks contribution to the provident fund. As a consequence of the said settlement, the appellant-Bank framed UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Regulations") in exercise of power conferred by Section 19(2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The said regulations were framed after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and were published with the previous sanction of the Central Government.