K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) WE may, for the disposal of these appeals, deal with the facts in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008, since common questions arise for consideration in all these appeals. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the legality of the claim for pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (for short 'CPF ') of some officers of the Canara Bank who had resigned and stood relieved from their respective posts prior to 3.6.1993, i.e. prior to signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, followed by the Canara Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'Regulations 1995 '), which was notified in the Gazette of India on 29.9.1995. The learned single Judge of the High Court held in favour of the appellants but the Division Bench of the High Court held otherwise. Hence, these appeals. We may, as already indicated, refer to the facts of the case in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30983-30986 of 2008. The appellants ' date of appointment and their resignation are as under: The above mentioned appellants had submitted their resignations between 24.7.1986 and 3.6.1993 prior to the signing of the Statutory Settlement dated 29.10.1993 under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, with regard to the introduction of 'pension ' as a second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF. Appellants, placing reliance on the various provisions of Regulations 1995, submitted that the pension regulations were introduced as an additional benefit to the serving and retired employees. It was pointed out that an employee who had resigned from the bank was not disentitled to pension except by operation of Regulation 22. If this regulation was held operative against the appellants, it would result in absurd consequences since by forfeiture of entire past service, such employees would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits including gratuity and provident fund. Further, it was pointed out that Regulation 22 admittedly never existed when the appellants had submitted their resignation letters and, therefore, the said regulation could not operate to disentitle the appellants from any pensionary benefits. Further, it was also pointed out when appellants had submitted their letters of resignation prior to 1.1.1993 the concept of 'voluntary retirement ' did not exist under the Bank Officers Regulations, 1979 (for short 'Regulations 1979 '). Regulation 1979, it was pointed out, neither defined the expression 'resignation ' legally nor the expression 'voluntary retirement '. In other words, the concept of 'voluntary retirement ' was required to be defined only because of the introduction of pension as a retiral benefit with effect from 29.9.1995. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, in the absence of legal definition of 'voluntary retirement ' or in the absence of any legally prescribed consequence of 'resignation ', it may be understood in the sense of 'voluntary retirement ' of service. Further, it was also urged that the conceptual difference between 'resignation ' and 'voluntary retirement ' comes in only if it is made by legal prescription and not in the ordinary sense as perceived in the realm of appointment. Learned counsel also pointed out that pension regulations must be read and interpreted keeping in mind its intended object and cannot be applied to deprive those employees who left services honourably either on the grounds of superannuation, resignation or even pre-mature retirement. Considerable reliance was placed on a recent judgment of this Court in Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others (2011) 12 SCC 197 and submitted that the principle laid down in that judgment would squarely be applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, it was also pointed out that the beneficial construction placed by this Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 459 is also applicable by way of extending the pensionary benefits to the appellants.
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the respondents banks submitted that the High Court had rightly denied the claim of pension to the appellants who had resigned from their respective service before the settlement reached between All India Bank Officers Federation and Indian Bank Association (for short 'IBA ') and that Regulations 1995 would not apply to the appellants. Further, it was pointed out that the appellants had resigned prior to 1.1.1993 and were not covered by the Statutory Settlement or the Joint Note dated 29.10.1993 and the Regulations 1995. It was pointed out that the reliance placed by the appellants either on Regulation 29 or Regulation 22 in support of their contentions was completely misplaced since the appellants were not covered by the scheme of pension introduced by the respective banks with effect from 1.11.1993. LEARNED counsel appearing for the banks submitted that the judgment of this Court in UCO Bank and Others v. Sanwar Mal (2004) 4 SCC 412 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In that case, the very same regulation came up for interpretation and the identical reliefs sought for, which were rejected by the Court. Further, it was also pointed out that Sheelkumar Jain 's case (supra) was interpreting an insurance scheme which is, not comparable with the Regulations 1995 applicable to the banks. The appellants, in these two main appeals were officers of the Canara Bank, who had resigned and stood relieved from their respective service between 24.7.1986 and 3.6.1993. IBA, representing 58 banks and their workmen had entered into a Memorandum of Settlement on 29.10.1993 under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. During the course of negotiations of service conditions of the workmen employees in February 1990, IBA agreed to introduce a pension scheme in banks for the workmen employees in lieu of employers ' contribution to the provident fund. The pension scheme agreed to by IBA was to be broadly based on Central Government/Reserve Bank of India pattern, details of the scheme were worked out later. A Joint Note was also made with regard to the introduction of pension as a second retiral benefit in lieu of CPF. Clause (4) of the Joint Note reads as follows: "(iv) The Pension Scheme will also be extended to retired Officers ' who retired on or after 1.1.1986. They will be entitled for monthly pension as well as commutation facility as from 1.1.1993. Those officers who avail of the Pension Scheme will be required to refund Bank 's contribution to the Provident Fund with interest thereon drawn by them together with simple interest at 6% from the date of withdrawal of the Provident Fund to the date of refund. " In furtherance of the Statutory Settlement and Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, draft of the Pension Regulations was negotiated and settled. Clause 17(1), so far as it is relevant for the present purpose, is extracted hereunder: "17(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Service Regulations/Service Rules an employee may be permitted to voluntarily retire after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service, after given three months ' notice in writing to the competent authority. " ;