Natural Justice is Equality Before Law

I am attaching  copy of one more order passed against Union Bank and advising bank to pay difference amount of gratuity to petitioner.

On the same ground all officers including me are entitled.

If you want to file one more appeal in one more court to waste good money of the bank and ignore orders of all labour court and keep your ego high, please inform me and oblige

I am attaching  summary report on various court  cases related to payment of gratuity where Bank has been directed to pay arrear/ difference amount of gratuity  to bank officers. Unfortunately  Heads Of each bank are filing appeal after appeal even though they lost the case at many places.  They are increasing  litigation  and wasting banks money / public money to pass their tenure. Ultimately  it is loss to bank and loss to retirees and Ministry of finance department equally  silent on these development.  

I request you to consolidate all cases and take a wise decision to ensure justice for retirees in general instead of forcing them all to take legal action.

Anticipating your kind response at the earliest.
With regards

Yours faithfully


Thanking you
With due regards
Danendra Kumar Jain
Date 02.12.2020

Subject: Fwd: Order for payment of gratuity

HIGH COURT LUCKNOW HAS TAKEIN COGNIZANCE OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM OF MINISTRY OF LABOUR THAT PRIOR PERMISSION FROM MOF IS REQUIRED TO FILE 

AN APPEAL.

1. The banks are fighting endlessly with the bank employees by filing appeal before appellate authority against order of controlling authority and or filing appeal in high court single bench, then in division bench, then supreme court then review of the court order etc etc.  Regarding terminal benefits referred above thereby violating the National Litigation Policy.

2. In this connection we came across the office memorandum issued by ministry of labour addressed to public sector undertakings including banks advising the procedure of screen by the concerned administrative ministry before filing THE APPEAL.

The original guidelines of Ministry of Labour vide letter letter No. 3/25/64-I&E(I-5) dated 08.08.1964

3. The Punjab & Sind Bank filed a WP No 7582 of 2020 in HC Lucknow bench against the order of the labour court in the matter of daily wage employees. As usual the  Ministry of Labour & Employment and the aggrieved employee were respondent. The  above office memorandum was brought to the notice of of honourable Judge HC by Asstt. Solicitor General of India  who usually represent the respondent RLC/DY.CLC.  

4. The HC Lucknow bench took cognizance of the office memorandum and asked the Punjab & Sind Bank  for permission and the bank advocate sought an adjournment. The fact is recorded in the HC order attached herewith.

----------------------------------@-------------------

Reminder to bank from MOF.  DFS

GRIEVANCE IS STILL PENDING .Kindly look into the matter and redress the grievance properly to the conclusive end. Please issue acknowledgement to the petitioner urgently and examine and settle the complaint as per the rules within a time bound manner.
SO ( BOIII) , DFS

This is to inform you  that Honorable Dy.CLC(C) Dhanbad had dismissed the appeal no.15/2020 -A-7 of UNION BANK  which was against the Order of Learned RLC(C ) Ranchi on   application of Sri Shivanand Gupta  36(31)/2018-RLC(R). Thereafter Honorable Dy.C.L.C (c )Dhanbad has passed the Order to  release differential amt. of Gratuity of  Rs.667555.42 to Sri Shivanand Gupta and it is a matter of immense pleasure  that Union Bank Of India has released payment as per court order in account of Sri Gupta.

But in similar case related to me,  my Bank is silent and ignoring payment of difference amount of gratuity to me which was   claimed by me more than two years ago.

 For this purpose  I have written  several letters to you as well as  all concerned dignitaries.


This is the first case of nationalised bank in which payment is released without bank going to High Court. But bank is denying  justice to me  despite claim lodged by me on similar lines.

I hope you will look into the matter seriously and take corrective  step immediately to ensure justice for all.

Thanking you

With regards

------------------------@@@@--@-----------------@@--

Letter from Department of Financial services Ministry of Finance 

Kindly look into the matter and redress the grievance properly to the conclusive end. Please issue acknowledgement to the petitioner urgently and examine and settle the complaint as per the rules within a time bound manner. PLEASE EXPEDITE
SO ( BOIII) , DFS

----------------@@----------@@@-------------------

 Letter from Union Bank Of India

This has reference to the trailing emails received from DFS through our MD&CEO's office, on the subject matter.

In this regard, we wish to inform as under:

1) Gratuity is calculated as per "The Payment of Gratuity Act" and “Union Bank of India Employees Gratuity Fund Rules” and better of the two is paid. Further, as per the Union Bank of India (Employees') Gratuity Fund Rules, beyond 30 years of service, an employee is paid half a month’s salary (15 days) for each year of service.

2) As per the Bank's Gratuity Rules, in the case of an officer employee, as referred to in the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 of the bank, who has opted for the new Scales of Pay, which have been brought into force by the Bank with effect from 01st July 1979,  'salary' shall mean for the purpose of calculating gratuity is: the basic monthly salary excluding special allowance and dearness allowance.

3) In your case, the gratuity was calculated under - both - the Payment of Gratuity Act and the Bank's Gratuity Rules and better of the two was paid.  

4)  In the case of Shri Shiva Nand Gupta, Single Window Operator (SWO) referred by you in your email, please note that the Bank had challenged the order dated 22.01.2020 of Regional Labour Commissioner, Ranchi before the Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad.   Dy.CLC, Dhanbad vide his order dated 05.11.2020  dismissed the appeal of the Bank and upheld the order of RLC Ranchi.  

5) Aggrieved with the order of the Dy.CLC, Dhanbad, bank has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhad at Ranchi.

6) Further, we wish to inform that the each order of the ALC/RLC/Dy.CLC is case specific and therefore, not applicable to one and all.

7) In the above back drop, your request for calculation and payment of gratuity in line with the order of RLC, Ranchi and Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad is not tenable.

8) We hope, we have clarified the matter.

Regards,

Chief Manager (EBD)
Human Resources Department
Union Bank of India
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg
Nariman Point
Mumbai 400 021
IP 116236 -  email: ebd.co@unionbankofindia.com

_----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is to be noted here is that when pay and allowances of bank employees are decided by Bipartite settlement , bank cannot reduce or increase anyone's pay and allowances at its own. This is as per principle of equity before law. 

Similarly when central  government  pass an act on gratuity, any state or any bank or any PSU cannot reduce or restrain benefit available to any staff at its own. 

They may increase benefits to retirees for their all employees, not for one or two as per their whims and fancies. 

 When one or more staff  are aggrieved by an act or on interpretation of act and they individually or jointly  approach court of law for modification, clarification, right interpretation or for other issues and when Court accept it and gives order for proper change in act or proper interpretation of law  or for modification and passes  such order in favour of aggrieved petitioner ,such order will be and must be uniformly applicable on every employee  guided by the act. It is not necessary that each employee  will have to file a case separately for justice. 

Gratuity rules are subjected to scrutiny at various levels and many ALC /RLC / DLC have asked bank to pay higher amount of gratuity  .Some cases are pending  in High court also on related issues. 

 In such case bank cannot say that only staff who approached court is entitled  the benefit of court order.  Bank cannot discriminate.  Bank should not insist that every employee  should approach court for justice and if they do so it is against natural justice and against the spirit of Constitutional right of uniformity  of law and and principle of equality before law.

Bank being a government  bank , it's CEO or CMD cannot deny equality and justice to its subordinate employees when they are governed by same act and same rules and same court order. 

If a particular CEO of a bank is interested to increase  litigation  only to keep his ego high and crush retired staff by his enormous  power taking advantage of  delaying culture in judiciary,   retirees should file a case in upper court or pray for justice in office of our respected  Prime Minister Mr.  Narendra Modi and office of learned Finance Minister. 

There are many rulings from Supreme Court  also where any office has not act acted in accordance  with law and applied his whims whimsical attitude in wrong interpretation of law and against court rulings. 

I still hope bank will reconsider it's response or else file an appeal against aforesaid order in High Court which reportedly  has not been filed till date as per my information. 

I hope government will look into the matter seriously because it is a matter of general  nature,  concerned with lakhs of bank retirees. It is sin for a bank to file case after case and appeal after appeal till retirees die .

God bless you all who believes  in Justice and who prefer  rule of law. 

With regards 

Danendra Kumar Jain 

P

Employee number 49709