- (1.) ALL the above five writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The learned counsel for the parties jointly agreed that common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. The writ petition No. 11523/2004 was considered by them as a leading case and the arguments were advanced with respect to the facts of this writ petition.
(2.) THE Bank of Barpda, a nationalized bank, is engaged in the business of banking and is a lead bank in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Shri bhola Prasad, the respondent No. 3, herein was the erstwhile employee of the Banaras State bank Limited. Under a scheme of amalgamation, the Central Government ministry of Finance, Department of Economic affairs provided amalgamation of, Banaras state Bank Limited with the Bank of Baroda. The said scheme provides that the Banaras State bank Limited shall be amalgamated w. e. f. July 20, 2002, the date specified in the official gazette under the amalgamation scheme called as Banaras State Bank Limited (Amalgamation with Bank of Baroda) Scheme 2002. January 22, 2008, was the date fixed of moratorium under the amalgamation scheme. The employees of the erstwhile Banaras State Bank limited (hereinafter referred to as EBSBL)were taken over by the Bank of Baroda as per scheme provided therein after receipt of their acceptance for continuance in service of Bank of Baroda. Clause 8 (1) of the amalgamation scheme provides the terms and conditions of continuation of services of the employees of ebsbl. Under sub-clause (3) of clause 8, a period of three years time has been provided for to the Bank of Baroda to pay or grant to the employees of EBSBL whose services are continued in the Bank of Baroda the same remuneration and same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of corresponding rank or status of Bank of Baroda.
(3.) THE employees of EBSBL were entitled to get the gratuity as per the Scheme. In the present case, the respondent Bhola Prasad, attained the age of superannuation on August 31, 2002 and was paid the gratuity amount on november 31, 2003. According to him, he was entitled for more amount of gratuity than the amount actually paid, therefore, he served a notice dated March 20, 2003 to the petitioner bank to pay the shortfall, failing which he filed an application before the Controlling authority, respondent No. 1, appointed under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, claiming that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,41,220. 44, as difference amount amounting to Rs. 1,35,140. 44 towards the gratuity was claimed.;