MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK, LTD. Vs. JOIN COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR/APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Management of the Coimbatore District, Central Co- operative Bank Limited, Coimbatore. The third respondents in the respective writ petitions served lastly as Branch Manager and Assistant Branch Manager were superannuated on 30-6-1995, 28-2-1997 and 31-8-1996 respectively. The petitioner Bank has a system of Linked Insurance Scheme in collaboration with Life Insurance Corporation of India for the purpose of payment of gratuity to its employees. After superannuation, gratuity was paid to the third respondents in the respective writ petitions. The third respondents filed applications before the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Labour claiming balance of gratuity amount from the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner Bank contended that clause 30 of the settlement arrived at under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after called "12(3) Settlement") was misinterpreted by the third respondents while making a claim for balance of gratuity amount. The petitioner contended that the length of service should be calculated only in terms of months as provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Contending that under Sec. 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 notice was already issued to all the employees including the third respondents herein by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies bringing to their notice the proposed amendment to be brought in under Clause 30 of the earlier 12(3) settlement, the petitioner took up a stand that the third respondents are not entitled to any balance of gratuity amount from the petitioner.

(3.) The second respondent having entertained the application submitted by the third respondents, directed the petitioner to pay the balance of gratuity amount as prayed for by the third respondents with 10% simple interest from the respective dates of retirement. The Bank having aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent also having accepted the contentions of the third respondents, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner Bank has come forward with these three writ petitions praying to quash the respective orders passed by the first and second respondents as against the petitioner Bank.