SYNDICATE BANK Vs. CELINE THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Entitlement to gratuity payable on retirement reckoning the pay revision which came into effect after such retirement with retrospective effect is the moot question arising in this case. Facts are not in dispute, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between the Indian Bank Association representing the Nationalised Banks and the organisations of the officers of such Nationalised Banks on June 23, 1995 concerning wage revision and other attendant benefits. The wage revision did have retrospectivity, as per the MoU, with effect from November 1, 1992. It was provided that the actual monetary benefit on account of such revision will be made available only to those who were in service on July 1, 1993 and afterwards. Different dates also were mentioned in respect of revision of H.R.A., D.A., Provident Fund, Compensatory Allowance etc. It was also made clear that in respect of those who retired between November 1, 1992 and October 31, 1994, the benefits of pay revision will not be reflected in payment of gratuity which had by that time been settled.

(2.) The writ petitioners retired during the said interregnum. They were entitled to pay revision with effect from July 1, 1993. They drew the benefits of higher salary. Can that higher rate of salary be ignored for the purpose of computation of gratuity payable in terms of Clause 46 of the Regulation for Payment of Gratuity framed under Section 19 read with , Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking ' Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The bank denied the claim for higher rate of gratuity. The respondents in W.A. No. 1584 of 2002 approached the controlling authority designated in terms of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 successfully. But, on appeal by the Syndicate Bank, the appellant in the said Writ Appeal, the order of the controlling authority was reversed leaving open the question of payment of gratuity to other adjudication. It was in the above circumstances, O.P. No. 3502 of 2000 leading to W. A. No. 1584 of 2002 was filed. The writ petitioners in O.P. No. 23514 of 1998 directly approached this Court. O.P. No. 3502 of 2000 was allowed by the learned single Judge holding that the petitioners would be entitled to gratuity on the basis of the whole pay that they had drawn on the respective date of their retirement. This is assailed in W.A. No. 1584 of 2002. As the issue arising in O.P. No. 23514 (sic) of 1998 is one and the same, it has been directed to be posted along with W.A. No. 1584 of 2002.

(3.) It is the admitted position that the gratuity payable in terms of the Regulation mentioned above are the benefits arising under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. In terms of Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the said Act, if a person is eligible for payment on better terms than that provided under the Act, then such beneficial terms would be applicable. Therefore, though the petitioners in O.P. No. 3502 of 2002 failed in the proceedings initiated under the said statute, it cannot be detrimental to them.