Extension of Medical Facilities to Retired Bankers

Latest Indian Business News Financial World - Latest Articles Latest World News

FIGHT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS TREATMENT BY RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES-UNITED FORUM OF BANK UNIONS EXPOSED-SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS ISSUED NOTICES TO UNION OF INDIA, INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND UNITED FORUM OF BANK UNIONS

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has issued notices vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18757 of 2011 titled J.K. Sawhney Vs Union of India & Others in the matter of framing of policy of medical reimbursement expenses to the retired employees of the bank as being paid to a serving employee, since the same is paid to retired Chairman & Managing Director / Executive Director of the Bank who serves the Bank only for a limited period of 2-5 years whereas an employee serves the Bank more than 30 years.

The said SLP was listed before Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.09.2011 and Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice to the Respondents. It is to be recalled Banks have formulated and introduced facility of “reimbursement of medical expenses to retired whole time Directors (Chairman & Managing Director, Executive Director) on the Board of Bank” w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Circulars were issued in Public Sector Banks in this regard in the year 2007. It is to be noted that there is no such enabling provision under the Bipartite Settlement governing the service conditions of bank employees.

When the above circular came into light, Shri J. K. Sawhney, General Secretary, All India Punjab National Bank Workers Federation Affiliated to INTUC decided to fight against the discriminatory policies of the bank. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6744/2007 before Hon’ble High Court, Delhi thereby prayed for:

(a) issuance of direction to Respondent Bank to formulate a scheme for reimbursement of hospitalization expenses to its retired employees and there dependent family members as been given to retired whole time directors of the bank post retirement with effect from 01.01.2005

(b) direct respondent to reimburse Rs 3,14,487/- incurred on hospitalization to petitioner, on the grounds that it is petitioner’s fundamental right that State/ Employer must reimburse medical expenses to an employee after retirement quoting Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment that a right to life is to be given vital meaning which include better standard of living and to a meaningful extent. There cannot be dispute with the said preposition that the right to health is an integral part of the meaningful right to life and any denial of the same would be in stack violation of fundamental rights of the citizens as guaranteed to them under Article 21of the Constitution of India.

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi rejected the Writ Petition only on the ground that the bank employees are not civil servants and further there is no provision in the Bipartite Settlement in this regard. However, the Hon’ble High Court has made the following observations in its judgment:

“(a) I do not find myself in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that there cannot be any provision under the bipartite settlement to deal with the grant of medical reimbursement and other benefits post retirement of the bank employees. Thus, the question to be addressed by the trade unions and the management of the various banks is: -

“Why, so far and on what grounds, no provision has been made to grant medical reimbursement to the retired employees of the banking industry”.

(b) Undoubtedly, at the same time, it is a sacred obligation of any employer in a Welfare State to adequately take care of the medical facilities of its employees. It is a Constitutional obligation of the State under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard the right to life of every person and such right to life is a right to lead healthy life and not a life of mere animal existence. Grant of medical facilities therefore is a fundamental human right to protect one’s health and such facilities should not be denied by the government to a government servant after retirement. So far the banking industry is concerned, a duty is cast upon them as well to take care of the medical facilities of their employees even after their retirement. Hence, it will be for the bank employees and the management of the banks to sit together and decide as to how best such medical facilities can be extended to the retired employees”.

As negotiations for the 9th Bipartite Settlement at the industry level were going on when the said judgment was delivered, copies of the orders were sent to all the constituents of United Forum of Bank Unions requesting them to press the demand before Indian Banks Association but United Forum of Bank Unions paid no attention on the demand and the order passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Thereafter petitioner filed an appeal before Hon’ble Division Bench, being LPA NO. 437/2010 titled J.K. Sawhney Vs. Punjab National Bank and the same was dismissed after affirming the above said observations of Ld. Single Judge.

As the petitioner in the previous writ petition had not made Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division and Indian Bank Association & United Forum of Bank’s Union as necessary party / respondents, the petitioner filed another Civil Writ Petition No. 833/2011 titled J.K. Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors, making above party as necessary respondents. However the said Civil Writ Petition was dismissed in limini on 09.02.2011 The petitioner filed an appeal being LPA NO. 232/2011; that too was dismissed in limini vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2011.

The present Special Leave Petition raises an important question of law whether the Court below have erred in not issuing notice to respondents to submits their views and thereby dismissing in limini the LPA No. 232/2011 and Civil Writ Petition No. 833/2011 titled J.K. Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors where as in LPA No. 437/2010 and Civil Writ Petition No. 6744/2007 titled J.K. Sawhney Vs. Punjab National Bank the Hon’ble High Court has conceded “it will be for the bank employees and the management of the banks to sit together and decide as to how best such medical facilities can be extended to the retired employees”.

(A) READ FULL JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF WRIT PETITION BY JK SAWHNEY FOR MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE RETIRED BANKERS IN THE HC OF DELHI

(B) READ FULL JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF APPEAL BY JK SAWHNEY FOR MEDICAL FACILITIES TO THE RETIRED BANKERS IN THE HC OF DELHI

The article has been contributed by kamlesh.chaturvedi@yahoo.com