S.P.Srivastava - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the notice dated 12-11-92 issued by General Manager of the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Limited, Allahabad wherein the petitioner was informed that on his attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years in the afternoon on 4-5-93, he will stand retired from service, he has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition filed on 22-2-93 seeking the quashing of the impugned notice dated 12-11-92 and praying for a direction requiring the respondents to permit him to continue in service till 14-5-95 treating the age of superannuation to be 60 years and not 58 years.
(2.) THE Allahabad District Cooperative Bank, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) the respondent no. 1 admittedly is a Cooperative Bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and is managed by a Board of Directors headed by a Chairman. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the aforesaid Bank on 18-5-60. At that time he fell in the category of 'workman' as envisaged under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. His status even on the date of the impugned notice continued to be that of a workman which fact is clearly asserted in para 4 of the affidavit dated 26-2-93 filed on behalf of the respondents on the said date. According to the respondents, as asserted in para 5 of the counter affidavit dated 24-4-93 filed on their behalf, there was no service rule governing the service conditions of the employees of the Bank prior to the year 1975. According to the petitioner who was a member of U.P. Bank Employees/Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Union Allahabad a settlement was arrived at between the recognised employees Labour Union and the employer on 22-2-66 hereunder apart from other settlements reached between the employees and p employer, it was also settled that the date of superannuation of an employee workman would be 60 years. The respondents do not dispute this settlement dated 22-2-66. In fact from a perusal of the letter dated 13-5-88 issued by the General Manager of the Allahabad District Cooperative Bank, Allahabad; a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, it is apparent that the employer had required all the workman employees to endorse their satisfaction and consent for the implementation of the terms of settlement which had been arrived at during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Tribunal-III, Allahabad. The list of employees who were required to append their signature as a token of their having consented to the settlement includes the name of the petitioner and against this name he is shown to have put his signature as required. It, however, appears that U. P. Cooperative 'Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, were framed in accordance with the provisions contained in the U. P. Cooperative Societies Acf and came into force with effect from 6-1-76. It not disputed by the respondents that the service conditions of the petitioner stands regulated by the provisions 'contained in the aforesaid regulations. Regulation 24 of the aforesaid Regulations provides that the age of retirement of an employee of a Cooperative Society shall be 58 years. Sub-clause (ii) of the aforesaid Regulation, however, provides that if before coming into operation of these regulations, the Society had entered into any contract with an employee on the date of his employment whereby he is entitled to continue beyond 58 years, the rule of retirement at the age of 58 years as contained in clause (i) shall not apply and the age of retirement shall be governed by the contract, The aforesaid regulation 24 was amended vide the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service (IVth Amendment) Regulations, 1983 which came into force with effect from 17-5-83. Thereunder for the regulation 24 of the Regulations of 1975 referred to hereinbefore a new Regulation 24 to the following effect was substituted :- "24. Retirement-the date of superannuation from service of an employee of a Cooperative Society shall be; (a) the date on which he attains the age of 58 years, if he is appointed to a post in category I, II, or III : Provided that, where before commencement of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employee's Service Regulations, 1975, the Society had entered, with an employee, at the time of his appointment, into a contract whereby he is entitled to be retained in service after the date on which he attains the age of 58 years, the provision of this sub-clause shall not apply and the date of superannuation of such employee shall be determined in accordance with the terms of the said contract; (b) the date on which he attains the age of 60 years, if he is appointed to a post in category IV."
(3.) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel representing the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner was clearly entitled to the benefits envisaged under Regulation 24 (ii) of the Service Regulations of 1975 which benefits were not at all disturbed even after the substitution of Regulation 24 by a new regulation in the year 1983, The contention is that regulation 24 (ii) of the year 1975 was really an exception to regulation 24 (i) and this exception continued to remain iforce even .after the amendment of the year 1983 as the same exception was ratained in the proviso to regulation 24 (a) as substituted by the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service (IVth Amendment) Regulation, 1983. It is contended that regulation 24 (ii) of the Regulations of 1975 permitted an employee of the society having entered into any contract with his employer the date of his employment whereby he was entitled to continue beyond 58 years, till he attained the age of retirement as contemplated under the contract unaffected by regulation 24 (1). Similarly, the substituted Regulation 24 provided that if an employee of the Society had entered with the employer at the time of his appointment into a contract whereby he was entitled to be retained in service after the date on which he attained she age of 58 years, the provisions contained in new Regulation 24 (a) fixing the age of retirement to be 58 years were not to apply and the date of superannuation of such employee had to be determined in accordance with the terms of the said contract. The learned counsel strenuously contended that under the impugned notice the respondent-bank purported to cut down the tenure of service of the petitioner which stood secured in his favour entitling, him to remain in service till he attains the age of 60 years, to only upto the age of 58 years seeking to enforce regulation 24 (a) of the Regulations denying the petitioner the statutory benefit to which he was entitled under the proviso to regulation 24 (a) as brought in the Statute Book in the year 1983. The contention is that the impugned action is manifestly illegal and the impugned action curtailing the service tenure of the petitioner which stood secured in his favour under a Statute, is clearly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel in this connection, has heavily relied upon the settlement reached between the employee Union and the employer Bank on 22-2-66 which according to the learned counsel represented the contract between the petitioner and the Bank entered into and in force immediately preceding the enforcemement of the regulation of 1975 or the Regulation of 1983. According to the learned counsel, for attracting the exception contemplated under the proviso to Regulation 24 (a) of Regulation 24 as was in force at the relevant time, the only thing required to be seen was the existence of a contract securing in favour of an employee a larger tenure of service than envisaged under Regulation 24 (a). Since the settlement dated 22-2-66, according 1o the learned counsel was such a contract and was in force before 1975 and continued to be in force even on the date when the amendments of 1983 became effective, the statutory benefits contemplated under the proviso referred to hereinbefore could not be denied to the petitioner and it was asserted that the respondents have acted with manifest illegality in doing otherwise.;