STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SURENDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The respondent claimed to be a confirmed employee of the Bank, but that claim was resisted by the Bank which ultimately led to an industrial dispute in which an award was made in favour of the respondent declaring him to be a confirmed employee of the Bank from Feburary 13, 1970. The award of the Tribunal did not bring to rest the controversy. This award was challenged by the Bank in a writ petition, but the writ petition was also dismissed by order dated January 10, 1996. In the year 1995 the respondent made his contribution to the Provident Fund account for the period from 1970 till the date of deposit. The respondent demanded, inter alia, that the Bank should also deposit its contribution in the Provident Fund account and also pay the interest to the respondent which would have normally accrued to his credit, had he been allowed to deposit the amount in the Provident Fund account. The claim for interest was confined to what would have accrued by way of interest on the Bank's contribution. Since this was not acceptable to the bank, the respondent filed the instant writ petition. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated November 6, 1998, inter alia, directed the bank to get the interest calculated on the bank's contribution towards the Provident Fund account, and deposit the same in the Provident Fund account of the respondent within three months.

(3.) The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Judge was justified in directing the appellant bank to deposit the amount in the Provident Fund account of the respondent including the interest that would have accrued on the bank's contribution towards Provident Fund dues. It is not in dispute that only a confirmed employee of the bank is permitted to make his contribution to the Provident Fund; and an equal amount is contributed by the bank. It, therefore, follows that if the respondent was treated by the bank as a confirmed employee, he would have made his contribution and could have also insisted that the bank should make its contribution to the provident fund. Such amount deposited by the respondent and the appellant bank would have earned interest at the prescribed rate to the benefit of the respondent.