Poonam Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.
(2.) The petitioner Ram Swamp Srivastava has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 29.6.1996 whereby he was retired from Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad alter completing the age of 58 years in accordance with age of retirement as provided under the Regulation 24 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Service Regulation). The petitioner was initially appointed as Cooperative Supervisor in the year 1959 and was transferred to Aligarh. Later on he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad on 16.5.1968. Alter his joining the petitioner was given basic pay scale and other benefits equivalent to the other employees of the Bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that he could be retired only after completing age of 60 years and not 58 years, in view of the settlement arrived at between Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad and Uttar Pradesh Bank Employees Union Central Office, Lucknow on 22.2.1966. The memorandum of settlement is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the memorandum of settlement reveals that a number of dispute existing at the relevant time between the Union and the Bank relating to the service conditions was resolved and a copy of the said memorandum was sent to the Conciliation Officer Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad for further action and to be kept on record for the employees of the Union of Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad.
(3.) There was yet another dispute which was referred to the Labour Tribunal under Section 4-Ka of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was finally decided in the year 1971. The Joshi Award was published on 25.6.1971, wherein the age of retirement was fixed as 58 years. However, this fixation of age was applicable to those employees who were not given the benefit of the settlement dated 22.2.1966. The employees who were getting the benefit of the earlier settlement, were not effected by Joshi Award. The age of retirement was in confirmation with the Regulation 24 of the Service Regulations i.e. the age of superannuation of an employee was 58 years. The impugned order has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same shows that the date of appointment of the petitioner is shown with effect from 14.5.1968 and, therefore, the Bank has refrained from extending the benefit of settlement dated 22.2.1966 to the petitioner. The impugned order mentions that the petitioner is retired in pursuance to the Joshi Award dated 25.8.1971. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the settlement dated 22.2.1966 is a settlement arrived at between the employer and Union to which the petitioner belongs. The petitioner was extended the benefit of other service conditions as applicable to any other employees on the basis of settlement of 1966 and in the circumstances, the petitioner could not be singled out and retired two years earlier and be denied the benefit of age of superannuation at 60 years as settled between the employer and Union on 22.2.1966. Sri R.N. Singh Senior Advocate submitted that the settlement entered into has been implemented and will be binding on all the parties. This question has been finally decided by this Court in the case of Lalji Srivastava v. Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr., 1994 U.P.L.B.E.C. Vol. 1, 297. Copy of the judgment has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Bank filed Special Appeal No. 732 of 1993 against the judgment dated 28.9.1993 in Writ Petition No. 6786 of 1993, Lalji Srivastava v. Allahabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another. The special appeal was dismissed on 17.5.1994. The Division Bench considered and discussed the Regulation 24(2) of the Service Regulation and held that the age of retirement as provided in the Regulation would not apply in such cases where the age of retirement is governed by a contract. In the year 1983, an amendment was brought about in the Regulation and in place of date of employment it was mentioned "time of appointment". It was also brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the settlement of 1966 has not been annulled by another settlement as such it was concluded that the age of retirement will be 60 years in respect of such employees who are governed by the settlement of 1966. A review application was also filed by the Bank which was dismissed on 15.11.1995. The Bank had set up a case that the settlement of 1966 stands superseded by Joshi Award of 1991 but the Division Bench rejected the plea of the Bank. The judgment and order rejecting the review application has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A finding was recorded that though the Joshi Award fixes the age of retirement as 58 years but it has saved the existing benefits and emoluments extended to the employee who were members of the Union prior to 1971 as the settlement of 1966 was applicable to them. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that since the aforesaid judgments have not been set aside by the superior court, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits.;