Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bank Of India Previously ... vs All India State Bank Of Indore ... on 5 April, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WA No.818/2020
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
WRIT APPEAL No.818/2020
State Bank of India
Vs.
All India State Bank of Indore Retired Officers Association through
General Secretary & Ors.
Indore, Dated:05.04.2021
Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned counsel for appellant.
Ms.Ritu Bhargava, learned counsel for respondents.
With the consent, finally heard.
ORDER
This intra court appeal takes exception to the order of writ court
passed in WP No.2102/2009 dated 1/8/2019. The learned Single Judge
by following the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5525 of
2012 Bank of Baroda Vs. G.Palani, allowed the petition and directed
the appellant Bank to fix the pension of petitioners with effect from their
respective dates of retirement with 9% interest within stipulated time.
[2] Shri G. Patvardhan, learned counsel for appellant submits that
para 5 of judgment of Supreme Court in G.Palani (supra) shows that the
dispute before the Supreme Court was in respect of such employees who
have retired or died while in service on or after 1/4/1998 and before
31/10/2002. In the instant case, the claim of respondent
Union/employees was relating to period between 31/10/2002 to
30/4/2005. Since judgment of Supreme Court in G.Palani (supra) does
not cover this period, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in
placing reliance on the said judgment.
[3] Shri Patvardhan further submits that the respondents before the
writ court filed IA No.3409/2011 with the prayer to allow the petition in
the light of judgment passed by Madras High Court in WA
No.1209/2007 (G. Palani Vs. State of M.P.). Since writ court formed an
opinion on 16/1/2012 that matter needs to be decided on merits, it could
not have been held that the matter is covered by G.Palani (supra).
[4] Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for Union. It is submitted
that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Madras High
Court affirmed in G.Palani (supra) decided on 13/2/2018.
[5] No other point is pressed by learned counsel for parties.
[6] We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and
perused the record.
[7] Interestingly, the appellant Bank filed IA No.4964/2012 before the
learned Single Judge. Para 3 and para 6 of said I.A. reads as under:-
"3) That, a copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Madras was filed byn the petitioners in the
present petition along with an application I.A. No.3409/2011
with a prayer that the present petition be allowed in the light of
the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in W.A.
No.1209/2007 on 28.06.2011.
6) That, the respondents respectfully submit that as the
very same issue involved in the present petition is subject
matter of adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil appeal No.5525/2012, it would be necessary
in the interest of justice and also to prevent avoidable
multiplicity of litigation to defer the hearing of the present
petition and to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.5525/2012 which involves the same
question."
(emphasis supplied)
[8] A plain reading of para 6 of the said application makes it clear that
it was categorically pleaded by appellant Bank before learned Single
Judge that issue involved in the present writ petition is same which is
pending consideration before Supreme Court in the case of G. Palani
(supra). Thus, bank had no doubt in its mind that the questions involved
before the writ Court and in G.Palani (supra) are exactly similar.
[9] On a specific query from the bench; whether after 31/10/2002, the
bank has framed any new Pension Regulations or whether bank and
employees association have entered into a new settlement which gives a
different formula for deciding pension etc, Shri Patvardhan expressed his
inability to address on this aspect. In other words, Shri Patvardhan fairly
submitted that even in the memo of writ appeal, there exists no averment
which shows that after 31/10/2002 any different pension
scheme/rules/settlement is applicable which deals with the scheme of
pension in a different manner after 31/10/2002. It is also fairly admitted
that upto 31/10/2002 there existed a settlement between the employer
bank and the Association. No further/subsequent settlement is brought to
the notice of this Court. As per Sec.19 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
unless a settlement is substituted by another settlement, the previous
settlement will hold the field. Thus, for this reason also, we find no
reason to take a different view than that taken in G.Palani (supra).
[10] In view of stand taken by the Bank in the aforesaid IA, learned
Single Judge has rightly recorded in the impugned order that when
petitioners therein placed reliance on the judgment of G.Palani (supra)
passed by Supreme Court there was no "serious objection" by the Bank.
Thus, for these cumulative reasons, we find no reason to interfere with
the order of learned Single Judge.
[11] Before parting with, in our opinion, this is an unavoidable piece
of litigation. Once curtains are finally drawn by Supreme Court in
G.Palani (supra) and bank specifically pleaded in IA No.4964/2012 that
the issue involved in the present case is same which is pending in G.
Palani (supra), this appeal should not have been filed.
[12] Considering the aforesaid, appeal is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) which shall be deposited before the
High Court Legal Aid Committee within 60 days.
(SUJOY PAUL) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
Judge Judge
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.04.05
21:45:13 -07'00'
