LAWS(KAR)-2012-5-2

SYNDICATE BANK Vs. Y R SHENOY

Decided On May 25, 2012
SYNDICATE BANK Appellant
V/S
Y R SHENOY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners who are respondents before us, were Bank Officers who had retired between 01.07.1993 and 31.10.1994. The Five Year Bipartite Settlement had by then expired on 01.11.1992. After extensive parleys a Joint Note dated 23.06.1995 was signed on the 'Conclusion of Discussions between Indian Banks Association and the Officers' Organisation'. Clause 7 thereof dealt with Gratuity and stipulated thus-

(2.) THE Writ Petitioners have put in atleast two decades of service with the sundry Banks in which they were employed including Canara Bank, Punjab National Bank, State Bank of Mysore, Syndicate Bank etc.,

(3.) BEFORE we go into the complexities of the nature and character of gratuity and the impact of the decision in D.S. Nakata �vs- Union of India, we would like to reject forthwith the arguments which were vociferously voiced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellants-Banks pertaining to 10.5% additional load factor/financial implications. The responsibility, it is clear to us, lies on the employer to ensure that any argument or settlement arrived at does not violate the equality clause of the Constitution. If discrimination is manifest, especially of a segment of the workforce which is no longer in service and whose interest predictably recede to the background when compared to the current employees, the Banks would have to bear the additional burden. It is not left just to the Court but equally to every "model" employer to ensure that the interest of every employee is given due consideration. In the particular circumstances of the present case, the Indian Bank Association was duty bound to consider the wisdom in granting payment of gratuity only to persons who retired post 01.11.1994. We shall further amplify hereinafter, but suffice it to state that retired employees, all of whom are within the purview of the subject Wage negotiations and settlements, form a single class which cannot be fragmented. It is certainly clear that all retrial benefits including pension and gratuity must be given to all employees evenhandedly. These benefits are meant not only as a recompense for past loyal service, but also as a means to tide-over the time when old age makes it practically impossible to earn a living. We do not live in a utopia where the retired or aged members of society enjoy purchasing power frozen to the date on which they had retired. Even escalating and increasing prices take their toll on society as a whole; indeed it is relentlessly more cruel to the aged to whom the vicissitudes of failing health are unwanted and unwelcomed company which has to be endured.