BANK OF BARODAversusS.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

                    [2013] 12 S.C.R. 783


                     BANK OF BARODA                                A
                               v.
        S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
             (Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2013)

                    DECEMBER 11, 2013
                                                                   B
          [CHANDRAMAUU KR. PRASAD AND
            JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

    Service Law:
                                                                   c
     Removal of bank employee from service 'witl1
superannuation benefits' - Held: In view of Regulation 22 of
Pension Regulations and Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement.
such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to
superannuation benefits under the Regulation, if visited with      D
penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits,
shall be entitled for those benefits, and such of the employees
though visited with the same penalty but not eligible for
superannuation benefits under the Regulation, shall not be
entitled to that - In the instant case, employee's heirs are       E
entitled to superannuation benefits with interest at the rate of
6% per annum - Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension
Regulations, 1995 - Regulation22 - Bipartite Settlement -
Clause 6(b) - Costs.

     Interpretation of statutes:                                   F

     Harmonious construction - Held: In case of apparent
conflict between the two provisions, they should be so
interpreted that the effect is given to both - Bank of Baroda
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 22 -            G
Bipartite Settlement - Clause 6(b).

     Words and Phrases:


                               783                                 H
      784       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2013] 12 S.C.R.


  A       Expression "as would be due otherwise", occurring in
      Clause 6(b) of Bipartite Settlement - Connotation of.

         Respondent no. 1, a clerk with the appellant-Bank,
    was visited with the penalty of 'removal from service with
    superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and
  8
    without disqualification from future employment'. His
    claim for leave encashment and pensionary benefits was
    declined by the employer. However, the Industrial Tribunal
    held in favour of the employee and the High Court
    dismissed the petition of the employer.
  c
        In the instant appeal filed by the employer, it was
    contended for the appellant that in terms of Regulation
    22 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension
    Regulations, 1995, removal of an employee from the
- D service of the Bank would entail forfeiture of entire past
    service and, consequently, he would not be entitled to
    pensionary benefits. It was submitted that clause 6(b) of
    Bipartite Settlement which provided that an employee
    found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed from
  E service with superannuation benefits, would not
    supersede Regulation 22, which was statutory in nature.

            Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. In 2002, a Bipartite Settlement was signed
  F by the Indian Banks' Association and the Banks'
    workmen's Union with regard to disciplinary action
    procedure. Various punishments have been provided
    under the Bipartite Settlement, Clause 6(b) whereof
    prescribes that an employee found guilty of gross
  G misconduct may be removed from service with
    superannuation benefits and without disqualification
    from future employment. The employee undisputedly has
    been visited with the penalty in terms of the Bipartite
    Settlement. [paras 10-11] [790-C-D, F]
  H
   BANK OF BARODA v. S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH              785
                    LRS.
      1.2. From a plain reading of Regulation 22 of the         A
 Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995,
 it is evident that removal of an employee shall entail
 forfeiture of his entire past service, and, consequently
 such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary
 benefits. Thus, no employee removed from service in any        B
 event would be entitled for pensionary benefits. But the
 fact of the matter is that the Bipartite Settlement provides
 for removal from service with pensionary benefits "as
 would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations
 prevailing at the relevant time". The consequence of this      c
·construction would be that the words quoted shall
 become a dead letter. Such a construction has to be
 avoided. [para 13] [791-A-C]

      1.3. The Regulation does not entitle every employee
to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is D
provided under Chapter II of the Regulations whereas
Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee
who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and
fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in
terms of Article 14 of the Regulation. Therefore, the E
expression "as would be due otherwise" in Clause 6(b)
of Bipartite Settlement would mean only such employees
who are eligible and have put in minimum number of
years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of
the employees who are not eligible and have not put in F
 required number of years of qualifying service shall not
be entitled to the superannuation benefit though removed
from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite
Settlement. Therefore, such of the employees who are
otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit and are G
 removed from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the
 Bipartite Settlement, shall be entitled to superannuation
 benefits. This is the only construction which would
 harmonise the two provisions. It is well settled rule of
 construction that in case of apparent conflict between the H
    786       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A two provisions, they should be so interpreted that the
  effect is given to both. [para 14] [791-D-H; 792-A-B]

       1.4. Therefore, this Court holds that such of the
  employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation
B benefits under the Regulation, if visited with the penalty
  of removal from service with superannuation benefits,
  shall be entitled for those benefits; and such of the
  employees though visited with the same penalty but are
  not eligible for superannuation benefits under the
C Regulation, shall not be entitled to that. Accordingly, the
  employee's heirs are entitled to superannuation benefits.
  The entire amount that the respondent is found entitled
  to, should be disbursed along with interest at the rate of
  6% per annum. [para 14-15] [792-8-D]

D       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10956 of 2013.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2009 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 22499
E of 2009.

          Jaideep Gupta, Arun Aggarwal, Anil Rai for the Appellant.

          Shilpa Singh for the Respondents.

F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       CHANDRAMAULi KR. PRASAD, J. 1. S.K. Kool,
  respondent no. 1 herein (since deceased), was working as a
  clerk with the petitioner, Bank of Baroda and while working as
  such after a departmental inquiry, as a measure of punishment,
G visited with the penalty of 'removal from service with
  superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without
  disqualification from future employment'.

     2. S.K. Kool, hereinafter referred to as 'the employee',
H made a request for leave encashment, which was declined by
  BANK OF BARODA v. S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH                     787
     LRS. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
the petitioner Bank of Baroda, hereinafter referred to as 'the        A
employer', on the ground that 'where cessation of service takes
place on account of employee's resignation or his dismissal/
termination/compulsory retirement from the Bank's service, all
leaves to his credit lapse.'
                                                                      B
     3. The employee laid claim for pensionary benefits but the
same was also declined. However, the employer advised the
employee to ask for sanction of compassionate allowance not
exceeding two-thirds of the pension which would have been
admissible to him otherwise. A dispute was raised and the             c
competent Government referred the dispute for adjudication by
the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute referred to the Industrial
Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', reads as
follows:

     "Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda          D
     in denying pension and encashment of leave to Shri S.K.
     Kool is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned
     workman is entitled to?"

     4. The employee filed his statement of claim and so did          E
the employer. The employee founded his claim by relying on
the order of punishment itself which, according to him, entitles
him the superannuation benefit. It was resisted by the employer
on the ground that such employees who are removed from the
service of the Bank are not entitled to pension. The Tribunal         F
considered the rival plea, upheld the contention of the employee
and passed an award in his favour, and while doing so,
observed as follows:

     "12. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and
     settled legal position, the tribunal feels no hesitation in      G
     holding that the action of the opposite party bank in
     denying superannuation benefits to the workman is neither
     legal nor justified. Accordingly it is held that the workman
     is entitled for his superannuation benefits under the final
     orders of the disciplinary authority passed on 19.09.03 and      H
    788        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 12 S.C.R.


A         any other order passed by some other officer denying
          superannuation benefits stands set aside. Accordingly the
          workman is held entitled for all termination benefits like
          pension, leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of
          pension subject to adjustment of any amount paid under
B         these heads to the workman."

          5. The employer assailed the aforesaid award in a writ
    petition but the same has been dismissed by the High Court,
    inter alia, observing as follows:
c         "It is true that both the provisions have to be harmonized.
          What logically follows from bare reading of the aforesaid
          provisions is that the disciplinary authority has the
          competence to inflict punishment of removal from service
          with a condition that such removal from service shall not
D         in any way result in forfeiture of pensionary benefits to
          which the workman concerned is otherwise eligible. Only
          simple reading of the words "AS WOULD BE DUE
          OTHERWISE" would mean that irrespective of the order
          of punishment of removal from service, workman would be
E         entitled to superannuation benefits, if it is found due
          otherwise i.e. if the workman concerned satisfies the other
          requirement of superannuation benefits under Regulations,
          1995, namely, he has completed requisite number of years
          of working etc."
F       6. Petitioner assails the award and the order of the High
    Court in the present special leave petition.

          7. Leave granted.

G       8. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing
  on behalf of the appellant Bank, submits that employees of the
  Bank of Baroda are governed by the Bank of Baroda
  (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995, hereinafter referred to
  as 'the Regulation'. According to the learned Senior Counsel,
H the Regulation has been made in exercise of powers conferred
  BANK OF BARODA v. S.K. KOOL (D) THROUGH                    789
     LRS. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
by clause (f) of sub-section (ii) of Section 19 of the Banking      A
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970
after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the
previous sanction of the Central Government. The Regulation,
therefore, in his submission is statutory in nature and in terms
of Article 22(1) of the Regulation, removal of an employee from     B
the service of the Bank would entail forfeiture of entire past
service and consequently he shall not be entitled to pensionary
benefits. According to him, such an employee at the most,
would be entitled for compassionate allowance in terms of
Article 31 of the Regulation. According to Mr. Gupta, though        C
clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement provides that an
employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be removed
from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or
provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under
the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and        D
without disqualification from future employment, but this, in his
submission, would not override or supersede Article 22(1) of
the Regulation, which in no uncertain terms provides for
forfeiture of entire past service on removal from service. Any
interpretation other than what has been suggested by him would      E
obliterate Article 22(1) oftiie Regulation, contends Mr. Gupta.

     9. Ms. Shilpa Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the employee's heirs, however, submits that the order of the
disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment itself entitled the F
employee to the superannuation benefits and that having
attained finality, the same cannot be legally denied. She does
not join issue that an interpretation which renders a provision
redundant is to be avoided and, in fact, invokes the same in
support of her contention. According to her, if the interpretation G
put by the employer is accepted, clause 6(b) of the Bipartite
Settlement shall be rendered otiose.

    10. Having considered the rival submissions we do not
have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission
of Mr. Gupta that the Regulation in question is statutory in        H
    790          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A nature and the court should accept an interpretation which
  would not make any other provision redundant. Bearing in mind
  the aforesaid principle, we proceed to consider the rival
  contentions. The terms and conditions of service of the
  employees are governed and modified by the Bipartite
B Settlement. Various punishments have been provided under the
  Bipartite Settlement which can be inflicted on the employee
  found guilty of gross misconduct. In 2002, a Bipartite Settlement
  was signed by the Indian Banks' Association and the Banks'
  workmen's Union with regard to disciplinary action procedure.
c It is common ground that in the light of the said Bipartite
  Settlement, clause 6(b) was inserted as one of the punishments
  which can be inflicted on an employee found guilty of gross
  misconduct and the same reads as follows:

           "6. An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may;
D
           (a)

           (b)     be removed from service with superannuation
                   benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and
E                  Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules
                   or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and
                   without disqualification from future employment, or
                   xxx             xxx                           xxx"

F        11. The employee undisputedly has been visited with the
    aforesaid penalty in terms of the Bipartite Settlement.

         12. Article 22 of the Regulation, which is relied on to deny
    the claim of the employee reads as follows:

G                 "22. Forfeiture of service:

          (1 )Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of
          an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail
          forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall
          not qualify for pensionary benefits."
H
  BANK OF BARODA v. S.K. KOOL (D) 1 HROUGH                     791
     LRS. [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.]
      13. From a plain reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is      A
evident that removal of an employee shall entail forfeiture of his
entire past service and consequently such an employee shall
not qualify for pensionary benefits. If we accept this submission,
no employee removed from service in any event would be
entitled for pensionary benefits. But the fact of the matter is that   B
the Bipartite Settlement provides for removal from service with
pensionary benefits "as would be due otherwise under the
Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time". The
consequence of this construction would be that the words
quoted above shall become a dead letter. Such a construction           c
has to be avoided.

     14. The Regulation does not entitle every employee to
pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided
under Chapter II of the Regulation whereas Chapter IV deals            D
with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a
minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only
can qualify for pension in terms of Article 14 of the Regulation.
Therefore, the expression "as would be due otherwise" would
mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in
                                                                       E
minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension.
However, such of the employees who are not eligible aoo have
not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall
not be entitled to the superannuation benefit though removed
from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement.
                                                                       F
Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments
on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for payment
of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. The
Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives
superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction                G
canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees
in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement?
Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have
observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who
are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed
                                                                       H
    792      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 12 S.C.R.


A from service in terms of clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement
  shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only
  construction which would harmonise the two provisions. It is well
  settled rule of construction that in case of apparent conflict
  between the two provisions, they should be so interpreted that
B the effect is given to both. Hence, we are of the opinion that
  such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to
  superannuation benefits under the Regulation if visited with the
  penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits
  shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees
c though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for
  suoerannuation benefits under the Regulation shall not be
  entitled to that.

        15. Accordingly, we hold that the employee's heirs are
  entitled to superannuation benefits. The entire amount that the
0
  respondent is found entitled to along with interest at the rate of
  6% per annum should be disbursed within 6 weeks from the
  date of receipt/communication of this Order.

         16. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and
E it is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs.50,000/- (rupees
  fifty thousand) to be paid by the appellant to the respondent No.
  1 along with other dues and within the time stipulated above.

    R.P.                                           Appeal dismised.