UCO Bank v. Vijay Kumar Handa
Background
The respondent, a bank clerk, was charged with assaulting a bank officer and, after a disciplinary enquiry found the charge proved, was initially dismissed from service. On appeal, the penalty was reduced by the appellate authority to "removal from service" with entitlement to terminal/superannuation benefits, and this order was never challenged by the bank. A subsequent Labour Court award further reducing the penalty and ordering reinstatement was set aside by the High Court, restoring the appellate authority's order. When the bank still refused to process his pension, the respondent went to the High Court again and won a direction for the bank to process his pension.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank's appeal, holding that once the appellate authority's order, granting the respondent terminal benefits despite removal from service, attained finality without challenge by the bank, the bank could not later invoke Regulation 22 (forfeiture of pension for removed employees) to deny that pension. Applying its earlier ruling in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool, the Court held that Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement (allowing removal "with superannuation benefits") and Regulation 22 must be read harmoniously: an employee otherwise eligible for superannuation benefits, if removed under Clause 6(b), remains entitled to those benefits.
Lesson Learnt
An employer who does not challenge a favourable-to-employee finding (here, entitlement to terminal benefits despite removal) cannot resurrect the issue years later at the pension-disbursal stage: such an unchallenged order attains finality and binds the employer.