KAILASH NATH SINGHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is dissatisfied with an order dated 30th August, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing his writ petition being CW No.3830/1999.

(2.) The Appellant was compulsorily retired from the services of the Punjab National Bank (for short the Bank) on 21st February, 1991. The compulsory retirement was a punishment for misconduct. The punishment has been accepted by the Appellant and is not a matter in issue. Subsequently however, the Bank came out with a pension scheme and, as a result of the punishment, the Appellant was not entitled to pension and that is why he filed a writ petition in this Court claiming pension. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the denial of pension is legally sustainable or not.

(3.) Sometime in the early 1990s, negotiations took place between the workmen and employees of various banks and the Indian Banks Association. During these negotiations, an agreement was reached between the.parties whereby the Indian Banks Association agreed to introduce a pension scheme in lieu of the employers contribution.to the provident fund. This agreement, under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 56 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 was reduced to writing on 29th October, 1993. Clause 1 and Clause 2(iii) of the Settlement are relevant for our-present purposes and they read as under :-