Tag: Employee Rights

No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Relief for Constable: Supreme Court Reinstates Dismissal Over Unauthorized Absences

The Supreme Court ruled that while it is desirable to inform an employee if past misconduct will be considered for punishment, it is not mandatory when the current charge itself constitutes a "gravest act of misconduct." In such cases, referring to past conduct merely to add weight to the decision does not vitiate the dismissal order, especially within a disciplined force where habitual absenteeism is a serious violation. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, Ex. Constable Satpal Singh, was appointed in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and later transferred to the Commando Battalion. The immediate trigger for the case was his unauthorized absence from April 4, 1994, to May 12, 1994 (37 days), after he overstayed a one-day casual leave. A departmental enquiry was initiated for this absence, w...
Read More
Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delayed Payment Not Always Contempt, But Bank Must Pay for Protracted Litigation

The Supreme Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, finding the delayed payment of dues, while a violation, was not wilful. It reinforced that contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate new claims like pension, which were not part of the original decree. The Court, however, awarded compensatory costs for the protracted litigation. Facts Of The Case: A.K. Jayaprakash, a manager at Nedungadi Bank Ltd., was dismissed from service in 1985 on grounds of alleged irregularities in sanctioning loans and delays in reporting. He challenged this dismissal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initially set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement. This decision was repeatedly challenged by the Bank, first in the Madras Hi...
Read More
No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

The Supreme Court held that pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen is governed solely by government guidelines, which banks cannot override. It ruled that reducing pay without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such an administrative action legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: After retiring from the Indian Navy, the appellants were re-employed by Punjab National Bank between 2015-2017 as Single Window Operators. Their initial pay was fixed at a higher amount, with four appellants receiving ₹40,710 and one receiving ₹34,160. However, following a 2018 clarification from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) that capped the maximum basic pay for ex-servicemen at ₹31,540, the bank issued a circular and subsequently reduced the appella...
Read More
Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions
11Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Bank Officer’s Pension Rights: Mandates Board Consultation for Deductions

The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory before reducing the pension of a compulsorily retired employee below the full admissible amount. The Court emphasized that pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A and cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The word "may" in Regulation 33(1) does not grant discretion to reduce pension below two-thirds of the full amount but clarifies eligibility. The judgment clarified that clauses (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read harmoniously, and any reduction in pension requires prior Board consultation, rendering post-facto approval insufficient. The High Court's interpretatio...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

This judgment primarily interprets Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding deemed closure. The Court examined if an application for closure was complete and if the State's communication constituted a valid refusal within the statutory 60-day period for deemed permission. It also considered the "appropriate Government's" role and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) implications. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) seeking permission to close its undertaking, as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company sought closure due to various reasons, including financial viability issues. The central dispute revolved around whether the State of Maharashtra, as the appropri...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Bank’s Charge Sheet: Failure to Seek CVC Advice Ruled Illegal

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 19 of the Union Bank of India Officers’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 mandates mandatory consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) before issuing a charge sheet in disciplinary cases involving a vigilance angle. The Bank’s failure to await the CVC’s first-stage advice rendered the proceedings arbitrary and illegal, warranting quashing of the charge sheet. The Court clarified that once the Bank acknowledges a vigilance angle and seeks CVC input, it cannot unilaterally proceed without considering the advice, upholding procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. No back wages were granted, but retiral benefits were ordered to be released. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, A.M. Kulshrestha, a Deputy General Manager at Unio...
Read More