INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 11.05.2016 passed in I.D.No.99 of 2015 is sought to be quashed by the Indian Bank Employees Union.

(2.) The writ petitioner Union states that the employee concerned, Mrs.Shanthi Radhakrishnan, joined the services of the second respondent Bank as Clerk on 12.06.1982. On 08.01.2007, the Indian Bank introduced Extraordinary Leave Scheme. Accordingly, the employee Mrs.Shanthi applied for grant of extraordinary leave for 3 years. On 31.10.2007, the said leave was sanctioned. On 27.04.2010, a Bipartite Settlement was arrived at for extending second option for pension to those who not have exercised option earlier, pursuant to Pension Scheme of the year 1995. The concerned employee Mrs.Shanthi opted for pension scheme well within the stipulated time and the said option was accepted by the Bank. On 25.10.2010, the employee applied for extension of leave for three months. On 27.12.2010, she applied for voluntary retirement from service. The extension of leave applied for by the employee was rejected. Consequently, on 25.06.2011, the Zonal Manager of the Indian Bank issued an order stating that the concerned employee had voluntarily left the services. An internal appeal was filed to treat the voluntary service of the employee as compulsorily retirement from service, enabling her to get the pensionary benefits. The said application was not considered and therefore, the Petitioner Union, on behalf of the employee concerned, raised an Industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai. The industrial dispute was referred for adjudication and the Tribunal rejected the industrial dispute, against which the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The petitioner states that only in the event of dismissal or termination, the forfeiture of past services can be effected for rejecting the claim petition for pension. In the present case, it was cessation of service, and therefore, she is entitled for pension as per the Pension Scheme, 1995. It is contended that the employee concerned had applied for extraordinary leave for three years and thereafter, she had submitted an application for voluntary retirement. Thus, the second respondent ought to have treated the application as voluntary retirement application, for all purposes, enabling her to get the pensionary benefits. Contrarily, the absence of the employee was treated as "Cessation of service"? and an order was passed to that effect. The Labour Court has also failed to consider these aspects. The writ petitioner further states that the action of the second respondent bank, invoking Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement, in the case of the employee concerned is unnecessary as she had applied leave for 3 years, which was sanctioned and further application was submitted for extension of leave. However, the said application was rejected. No disciplinary action was taken against the employee concerned. Under these circumstances, the employee also submitted an application to treat her as an employee retired compulsorily, for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits.