L S THAKUR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that Respondent Punjab National Bank be directed to release the Pension, Gratuity and Provident Fund to him.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving in the Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 17-9-1973. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was removed from service vide order dated 26.12.1989. It is not necessary to give all the details but in CWP No. 556 of 1990, this Court vide its order dated 14.8.1997 directed the Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner only with regard to the penalty imposed against the petitioner. Thereafter the statutory appeal of petitioner was re-heard and order of removal was modified and changed to an order of compulsory retirement on 11.11.1997. The petitioner challenged the order of compulsory retirement by filing CWP No. 804 of 1998. In that petition he also claimed retiral benefits etc. on account of his compulsory retirement. The said petition was dismissed on 2.12.1998 on merits. However, prayer of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits was not adjudicated upon and liberty was given to him to again approach the Bank for relief. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition in the Apex Court against the said judgment, which was rejected. Thereafter petitioner has filed representation to the authorities but nothing was conveyed to him and he filed CWP No. 353 of 2000, which was decided on 10.11.2006 wherein this Court directed the Bank to either take decision or convey the decision already taken to the petitioner. Thereafter on 8-12-2006, the Bank communicated the decision of rejection dated 21-3-2000.

(3.) IN P.H Kalyani Vs. Air France, (1964)2 SCR 104 a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that when a Labour Court/ INdustrial Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry was defective and gives the party an opportunity to again lead evidence and thereafter another displinary order is passed and that order is held to be valid, then the subsequent order relates back to the date when the original order of dismissal was passed. Following the laid down by the Constitution Bench, the Apex Court in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Limited and another Vs. Kala Singh and Others (1997)6 Supreme Court Cases 159 also took the same view . Thus it is apparent that the order of compulsory retirement passed in the year 11-11-1997 would relate back to 26-12-1989 when the original order of dismissal was passed