The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 26726 of 2020 (Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Odisha Gramya Bank Karmachari Sangha, the General Secretary represented through …. Petitioner -versus- Union of India and Others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate For Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
this Court in respect of employees of Puri Gramya Bank, no justification remains on the part of the Opposite Parties not to extend such benefits in WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 2 of 8 respect of rest of the employees who ultimately are the part of the Odisha Gramya Bank. 4. The Petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12370 of 2013 and pursuant to the direction passed by this Court to consider their case, the authorities rejected such prayer of the Petitioner on 27.07.2020 (Annexure-10) to treat all the employees equally as per the NIT award, on the premises that the award of NIT is not applicable to the Petitioner’s case. 5. Though several Opposite Parties have been arrayed in the present writ petition, but none except Odisha Gramya Bank filed their reply. The Odisha Gramya Bank filed its counter affidavit reiterating its stand as per the impugned order that the benefit of the award of NIT is not applicable to the case of the present Petitioner since Odisha Gramya Bank was not existing on that date. Further, the employees of respective Regional Banks must have been paid their entitlements before amalgamation and as such the claim of the Petitioner is not entertainable after delay of more than two decades. 6. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, objects the prayer of the Petitioner by submitting that the same is not entertainable at this belated stage. He strenuously submits that the employers in respect of those employees of Regional Rural Banks extant at the time of grant WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 3 of 8 of award by the NIT are liable to pay the entitlements to their employees and at this stage after amalgamation of all such Regional Rural Banks into one as Odisha Gramya Bank, such claim of the employees of Odisha Gramya Bank is liable to be rejected. He further submits that the employees have waived their claim for not raising it at appropriate time when the employees of Puri Gramya Bank raised their claim. He relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P.Jal Nigam & Another Vrs. Jaswant Singh & Another, (2006) 11 SCC 464 to substantiate his submission. 7. Before delving into the rival contentions, it is found admitted that the award of NIT is applicable to the employees of all such Regional Rural Banks and there is no quarrel over the same. What is disputed by Opposite Party No.3 is that, at the time of amalgamation of all the Regional Banks existing in Odisha to form Odisha Gramya Bank, no such claim for benefit pursuant to the award of NIT was raised and therefore, their claim to such benefits subsequently after amalgamation is not entertainable. 8. It is admitted that all the Regional Rural Banks operating in Odisha as detailed at paragraph-9 of the writ petition were amalgamated in two phases, i.e. in 2007 and 2013 to form the Odisha Gramya Bank. The existence of such Regional Rural Banks at the time WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 4 of 8 of award of NIT before amalgamation into Odisha Gramya Bank is never disputed. Therefore, it is otherwise left undisputed that such employees of Odisha Gramya Bank were the erstwhile employees of those respective Regional Banks operating on the date when the award of NIT came into force. Further, it also remains undisputed that the award of the NIT is applicable for the employees of all such Regional Rural Banks operating at that time. 9. Mr. Senapati, contends that since the respective Regional Rural Banks were operating prior to the amalgamation into Odisha Gramya Bank, the respective employers of such Regional Rural Banks are liable to pay the entitlements to their respective employees, which cannot be now saddled on the employer of Odisha Gramya Bank. Such submission advanced by Mr. Senapati is not found acceptable for the simple reason that the entitlements of the employees of Regional Rural Banks and payment thereof on the date of amalgamation was never stated to be excluded in the conditions of amalgamation. When the entire liability of all such Regional Rural Banks are being taken upon amalgamation to form the Odisha Gramya Bank, at the present stage the employer in Odisha Gramya Bank cannot deny of their liability in respect of those employees brought to Odisha Gramya Bank. WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 5 of 8 10. So far as the submission of delay and laches alleged against the Petitioner, the same is not found supported by any material. The decision in U.P. Jal Nigam (supra) as relied on by Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, would of no help to him. It is for the reason that the same is with regard to retirement at the age of 58 or 60 years, where the employees have already retired to loss their right of continuance. 11. It is seen that the direction of this Court dated 15.12.2008 passed in the case of Puri Gramya Bank Workers Union was implemented after confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.04.2010 and present Petitioner first approached this Court in the year 2013 in the earlier writ petition. Prior to that, they agitated their grievance before different forums including the ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. Further, the process of amalgamation in 2007 as well as 2013 to constitute all such operating Regional Rural Banks as one Bank, i.e. Odisha Gramya Bank is not disputed and the conditions of amalgamation do not prohibit grant of such entitlement to the employees of all the Regional Rural Banks. So there cannot be any differentiation amongst such employees where the erstwhile employees of Puri Gramya Bank were granted the benefit while employees of other Regional Rural Banks are deprived of the same. It is to be mentioned here that the employees of all Regional WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 6 of 8 Rural Banks form one class before amalgamation, for the benefits as per the award of NIT, and they continued to be in one class even after amalgamation and as such deprivation for a portion of employees of the same bank to similar benefits would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is not the case of opposite parties that there would be any discrimination between such employees of different Regional Rural Banks in the matter of pay and other entitlements upon their amalgamation to constitute one Regional Rural Bank, i.e. Odisha Gramya Bank. All such previous employees of different RRBs come under one group governed by same service conditions to constitute one class. When the order of this Court dated 15.12.2008 has been tested and confirmed by the Supreme Court, there is no reason left to deprive other similarly situated employees to grant such benefits. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.3 is directed to extend all such benefits in respect of the employees of Odisha Gramya Bank without any discrimination of such benefits granted to those employees of erstwhile Puri Gramya Bank and to release all benefits, within a period WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 7 of 8 of four (4) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Arguments
: Mr. J.K.Ray, ASC Mr. M.K. Pati, CGC Mr.S. Senapati, Advocate for O.P.3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 13th November 2024 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, Mr. M.K.Pati, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. J.K.Ray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner is the employees union of Odisha Gramya Bank represented by its General Secretary. The prayer of the Petitioner is with regard to grant of similar benefits as per the award of National Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIT’) dated 30th April 1990, which was given effect to in the year 1991 pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 1 of 8 Supreme Court. Claiming for similar benefits as per the award of NIT, the General Secretary of Puri Gramya Bank Workers Union preferred writ petition in OJC No.8322 of 1994 before this Court wherein this Court vide order dated 15.12.2008 directed the Opposite Parties to re-fix the date of regularization of the employees on and from their date of first appointment and to pay the differential salary and all other benefits to which the employees are entitled to. This order was challenged by the Opposite Parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3500-3501 of 2010 and the Supreme Court in order dated 06.04.2010 confirmed the direction of this Court dated 15.12.2008. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel that initially several Regional Banks, namely, Puri Gramya Bank (subsequently renamed as Neelachal Gramya Bank upon amalgamation with Dhenkanal Gramya Bank), Baitarani Gramya Bank, Balasore Gramya Bank, Cuttack Gramya Bank etc. were operating and have been subsequently amalgamated to form the Odisha Gramya Bank with effect from 07.01.2013 and in such amalgamation process, Puri Gramya Bank was also formed part of the same. It is further submitted that when the benefit as per the NIT award was extended pursuant to the direction of
Decision
14. The Writ Petition is disposed of as allowed. (B.P. Routray) Judge Himansu Dash, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Dec-2024 13:37:09 WP(C) No.26726 of 2020 Page 8 of 8