A. RANGANNA, S/O A. RANGAIAH AND R. KRISHNAMACHARI, S/O P.A. RAMANUJA IYENGAR, BOTH WORKING AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT AT SYNDICATE BANK Vs. SYNDICATE BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are taken up for consideration having regard to the fact that they arise under similar circumstances.

(2.) THE Petitioners are the employees of the Syndicate Bank and have now attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of this petition. Their main grievance at this point of time is the deductions made out of the retirement benefits to the extent of Rs. 60,000/ - and Rs. 2,30,000/ - respectively. These deductions have been made illegally, according to the Petitioners and under duress, since the Petitioners had applied for voluntary retirement scheme and since the loss allegedly sustained by the bank on account of acts attributed to the Petitioners was the reason that such claims were being made and that being held as an impediment to the consideration of the applications of the Petitioners and in the face of the bank not having determined the loss at that point of time, in order to secure the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme, the Petitioners had unwittingly accepted that they would be willing if and alleged loss could be retrieved out of the retirement benefits. However, there remains a dispute as to the involvement of the Petitioners in any such acts of misconduct which has occasioned loss to the bank.

(3.) THE candid admission that there was an undertaking given by the Petitioners to the Respondent -bank that they would have no objection if any loss said to have been occasioned on account of the alleged misconduct by the Petitioners could be recovered out of their retirement benefits is an admission which would defeat the case of the Petitioners No matter that the Petitioners seek to urge that the same has been extracted from the Petitioners under duress and that they were desperate to obtain the benefit of voluntary retirement, which prompted them to give such an undertaking is not a ground that can be accepted at this point of time. The admission remains an admission and the excuse that it was only to obtain voluntary retirement would indicate the want of bona fides on the part of the Petitioners even if that excuse could be accepted.