The Hon’ble Supreme Court, invoking Article 142 of Constitution of India, passed a judgment in an Appeal filed by Indian Overseas Bank- a Nationalised Bank in a VRS case, the operative part (Orders) of which is given below:
........ Therefore, for doing complete justice, we order as follows:
i. The respondent shall be treated to be in continuous service for all purposes till his date of superannuation.
ii. The respondent shall be allowed to work from 1.8.2017. In case there is any technical delay he shall be deemed to have joined the duty on 1.8.2017.
iii. Since the service has been treated as continuous for all purposes, whatever benefits the respondent would have earned in the normal channel would be available to him when he joins back.
iv. The respondent shall not be entitled to any back-wages from the date of termination in 2001 to the date of judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court i.e. 21.02.2014. However, the service will be treated, as directed above, as continuous for all other purposes.
v. The respondent shall, however, be entitled to 50% of the backwages from 21.02.2014 to 31.7.2017.
vi. The appellants are permitted to withdraw forthwith the amount credited to the account of the respondent as VRS benefits along with the accrued interest.
vii. Since the respondent is permitted to be treated as a regular employee for all other purposes, needless to say that the pension and pensionary benefits will be settled accordingly. However, for the purpose of terminal benefits, those benefits shall be settled by extending a similar treatment as given to the employee immediate junior to the appellant. (* typographical error for respondent)
viii. Since the respondent has foregone his entire backwages from 2001 to 2014 and 50% from 2014 to 31.07.2017, we make it clear that the appellants shall not make any demand for contribution towards pension.
Subject to the above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Background of the case:
The respondent withdrew his Offer for VRS before it was accepted and communicated to him. Two days after the withdrawal of VRS Offer, the Bank relieved the respondent on 31.01.2001 accepting his offer for VRS on the plea that the VRS circular stipulated “Option once exercised cannot be taken back.” Bank did not even pay the VRS amount to the respondent for nearly two years, 50 % of which the bank was supposed to pay instantly. Meanwhile, the respondent knocked the doors of High Court. The Bank credited 50% VRS amount with PF & Gratuity to respondent’s SB account unilaterally after twenty three months without the knowledge of the respondent which the later protested and had not accepted. Division Bench of High Court ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits and pension, if retired. Bank appealed to SC.
Current status:
Respondent joined back on August 01, 2017 after a gap of 16 and half years. While the Bank instead of paying 50% back wages directly and reversing the VRS amount lying intact in the respondents SB account with accrued interest, has applied a wrong principle and made an adjustment entry after appropriating the TDS amount then deducted (the TDS certificate was never used by the respondent) and thus debiting further the amount lying in the respondent’s account being the difference in accrued interest. Bank also had not deducted the PF amount from the back wages calculated and also not deducting PF from the current salaries being paid for August, September 2017 despite requests. Bank has not so far settled respondent’s leave record, designation, promotions and other entitlements while respondent has now just eleven months to superannuate.
I solicit answers to the following queries from the learned faculty:
1. Whether the respondent is entitled for all types of Leaves for the period he was kept out of job as respondent struggled a lot to survive for all these years? Bank is denying any leave to respondent.
2. Entitlement for promotions as the batch mates and even much juniors to respondent have got 3-4 steps promotions. Respondent was qualified and eligible for promotion tests/interviews since 2002.
3. How Bank is justified in not deducting the PF from the Back-wages and from the salary of current months? The respondent will be deprived of interest accruable over the PF and also IT exemptions.
4. Respondent is not sure whether the Bank will honestly settle his correct pension and gratuity.
5. Whether the respondent is entitled for interest accrued over the 50 % back wages settled by the bank on Sept 04, 2017?
6. What are the other benefits the respondent entitled for?
7. Whether the Bank’s responses tantamount to contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court?
8. What should be the right and fast course of action to make the Bank to honor the SC judgment in true letter and spirit?
