(Against the Order dated 22/07/2011 in Appeal No. 5256/2010 of the State Commission Karnataka)

1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

Head Office.K G Road,

Bangaluru - 560 254

Karnataka ...........Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. S.K. VIDYA

R/o. No. -112, 3rd Cross, Bhuvaneshwarinagar,

BSk 3rd Sateg

Bangalore

Karnataka

2. INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION

- ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Tiwari, Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Astha Tyagi, Amicus Curiae with R-1 in person (FOR R-1)

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (For R-2)

Dated : 27 Aug 2012

ORDER

PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition challenges the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Bangalore (tate Commission for short) by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the District

Forum in complaint No.2382 of 2010.

The District Forum by its order had accepted the complaint filed by the complainant Mrs. S.K. Vidya, respondent No.1 herein, in terms of the following directions:- .

1. The  complaint is allowed in part.

2. The complainant is entitled to the all the pension benefit under the agreement/settlement date 27.4.2010.

3. The opposite party No. 1 shall calculate the amount as per the scheme, deduct whatever amount the complainant had to pay back as per agreement /settlement and pay the rest to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.

4. The opposite party No. 1 shall also pay the monthly pension as per  the said settlement regularly from the date of the scheme to the complainant.

5. The opposite party No. 1is also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of this litigation to the complainant.

6. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to submit the compliance report with necessary documents to this forum within 75 days from the date of this

order.

2. Respondent No.1 S.K. Vidya who is the original complainant in this case retired from the service of the petitioner Bank which was opposite party No.1 before the District Forum on 30.4.2007 under the Exit Option Scheme of the opposite parties. At the time of her retirement, she was working in a managerial capacity in Scale III position and had put in more than 25 years of service. As per the agreement dated 27.4.2010 entered into between the OPs including the Indian Banks Association and the Trade Unions, the complainant intimated the OP Bank about her willingness to join the pension scheme vide her letter dated 30.7.2010. Vide this letter, she also informed the OP Bank that whatever recovery is required to be made as per the new settlement be recovered out of the commutation amount payable by the Bank to her to implement the option of pension being made by her under her letter.

The OP Bank orally informed the complainant that as per the letter received by the OP Bank from the Indian Banks Association (Respondent No.2), she is not entitled to join the pension scheme as she retired under the Exit Option Scheme. Since the last date for joining the scheme as per the agreement was 26.10.2010 and the complainant felt that she was being wrongly deprived of the benefits of the pension scheme as per the new settlement / agreement dated 27.4.2010, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore on 18.10.2010. 3. On notice, the opposite party No.1 filed its reply in which it was submitted that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer vis-vis opposite parties and therefore, there is no consumer dispute made out and there cannot be any deficiency in service between the parties and hence the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the  complainant which is liable for dismissal. It was further submitted that the complainant had been working in a managerial capacity and had put in more than 25 years of service.

The pension scheme 1995 was introduced by opposite party No.1 wherein its  employees could opt for pension. At that time, the complainant did not exercise her option to join the pension scheme of the opposite party No.1 and chose to continue to opt for provident fund scheme of the Bank. It was further pointed out that Bipartite settlement dated 27.4.2010 was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of opposite party No.1 on 25.8.2010 and accordingly vide its circular dated 28.8.2010, opposite party No.1 had offered to the eligible employees and officers of the Bank another option to opt for pension scheme in the prescribed proforma between 28.8.2010 and 26.10.2010.

In its written statement before the District Forum, opposite party No.1 further submitted that the complainant did not submit any option letter in the prescribed proforma during the prescribed period. It was also submitted by the opposite party that it has not received the letter dated 30.7.2010 purported to have been given by the complainant but it was pointed out that the same letter was also not in the proforma prescribed and in any case when the said letter was not received by the OP Bank, the question of giving reply to such letter to the complainant did not arise. It was the contention of the OP Bank in its written statement that the complainant had retired under the Exit Option Scheme on 30.4.2007 and hence she is not eligible for the pension benefits under the new scheme in accordance with a clarification received from the Indian  Banks Association, i.e., opposite party No.2 on 26.8.2010.

It was specifically pointed out by the OP Bank that a good number of retired employees including the complainant met the opposite  party in regard to the new pension scheme in September 2010 and they were clarified that they are not eligible for the pension  under the new scheme. During this  meeting, the complainant did not refer to or raise her voice about her letter dated 30.7.2010. According to the opposite party, the pension benefit under the Exit Policy Scheme was available only to those who had already opted for pension before issue of Exit Policy Scheme. The complainant on her own had not opted for pension when it was first introduced in 1988, therefore, the claim of the complainant for pension under the Exit Option Scheme as well as under new circular dated 28.8.2010 in pursuance of the new Bipartite settlement is untenable. Denying any deficiency in service and other allegations contrary to the submissions made by the opposite, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint on merits as well.

 3. On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence placed by the parties before it, the District Forum vide its aforesaid order, allowed the complaint in terms of its directions reproduced above Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the same by filing an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. 4. We have heard Mr. Anil Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner Bank, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Amicus Curiae with complainant/respondent No.1 in person and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the record placed before us by the petitioner Bank as well as the objections raised by respondent No.1 to the revision petition, rejoinder to the objections of respondent No.1 filed by the petitioner Bank and the rejoinder filed on behalf of respondent No.2 to the objections raised by respondent No.1 to the revision petition. It is to be noted that Indian BanksAssociation which was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum and was appellant No.2 along with the petitioner in appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order dismissing the joint appeal of the Indian BanksAssociation and the petitioner. It is also to be noted that although opposite party No.1, i.e., State Bank of Mysore alone has filed the present revision petition, it did not implead the opposite party No.2 Indian BanksAssociation as even a respondent in the petition. Later on, on the request of the petitioner, it has been allowed to implead Indian BanksAssociation as respondent No.2 which has accordingly filed its rejoinder to the objections of respondent No.1 to the revision petition.

 

5. The first and foremost ground on which petitioner has challenged the impugned order is that the complainant/respondent No.1 who was an employee of the petitioner Bank is not a consumer qua the petitioner Bank and it has been submitted that both the District Forum and the State Commission have gravely erred in not appreciating this important aspect of the dispute in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the complainant being an employee of the petitioner Bank could not be treated as a consumer within the definition of the word contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute involving the interpretation of the service contracts and only the civil court as such has jurisdiction in respect of this dispute. Besides this, the petitioner Bank has also challenged the impugned order on merits.

6. So far as the maintainability of the dispute before the consumer Fora is concerned, both the For a below have returned their finding in favour of the complainant rejecting the plea taken by the OPs. The District Forum in its order came to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner to the effect that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer and hence the matter cannot be considered as a deficiency in service is an untenable contention. It found that the opposite party never stated that the complainant is not a consumer but simply said that as per the reliefs claimed, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer vis-vis the OPs. In this regard, the State Commission while rejecting the contention of the petitioner has made the following observations in para 13 of its order in favour of the complainant:- 3. No doubt, the respondent was working an officer with the appellant No. 1. It is also not in dispute that she rendered her physical and mental service and was receiving the money. For the services rendered by the respondent, appellant No. 1 is bound to give the pension under the scheme in question. Considering this aspect of the matter the contention of the appellant that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted.

7. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has relied on the observations of the Honle Supreme Court in the case of Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and Ors. [1995) 6 SCC 651]. Taking note of the well-recognized distinction between contract of service and  contract for services Honle Supreme Court made the following observations in para 40 of its judgement in this case:- 0. Shri Salve has urged that the relationship between a medical practitioner and the patient is of trust and confidence and, therefore, it is in the nature of a contract of personal service and the service rendered by the medical practitioner to the patient is not `service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. This contention of Shri Salve ignores the well-recognised distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services [See : Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, para 501; Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, at p. 157]. A contract for Services implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services e.g. professional or technical services, to or for another in the performance of which he is not subject to detailed direction and control but exercises professional or technical skill and uses his own knowledge and discretion. [See : Oxford Companion to Law, P. 1134]. A contract of service implies relationship of master and servant and involves an obligation to obey orders in the work to be performed and as to its mode and manner

of performance. [See : Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn., P. 540; Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co.; and Dharangadhara Chemical Works at p. 159]. We entertain no doubt that Parliamentary draftsman was aware of this well accepted distinction between "contract of service" and "contract for services" and has deliberately chosen the expressi on contract of service instead of the expression contract for services in the exclusionary part of the definition of `service’ in Section 2(1)(o). The reason being that an employer cannot be regarded as a consumer in respect of the services rendered by his employee in pursuance of a contract of employment. By affixing the adjective `personal’ to the word service the nature of the contracts which are excluded is not altered. The said adjective only emphasizes that what is sought to be excluded is personal service only. The expression "contract of personal service" in the

exclusionary part of Section 2(1)(o) must, therefore, be construed as excluding the  services rendered by an employee to his employer under the contract of personal service from the ambit of the expression service

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, pleaded that the complainant being an employee of the petitioner Bank cannot be regarded as a consumer qua the petitioner Bank and as such her complaint should not have been entertained by the Fora below as a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Counsel for the Indian BanksAssociation, i.e., respondent No.2 supported the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner Bank.   On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in a later judgement dated 22.4.2008, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6447 of 2001 of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Bhavani [(2008) 7 SCC 111] has made the

following observations in paras 19 to 22 of the said judgement:-

9. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the relevant documents which had been produced before the District Forum and we are satisfied that the dates of birth of the respondents as recorded in their service records with the company are the correct dates of birth of the employees and not the dates of birth as entered in the records of the appellant. The reasoning given by the District Forum in accepting the entries in the company’s record while rejecting those in the records of the appellant/Regional P.F. Commissioner are based on sound logic and the materials on record. For instance, there are certificates issued by the company to indicate that the respondent in C.A. No.6447/2001 had continued to work in the company till her date of superannuation i.e. 31.12.1995 and there was no denial on the part of the appellant that the respondent continued to contribute to the fund till

the year 1995. No explanation is forthcoming as to why and how such contributions were received, even though according to the records of the appellant the respondent had retired on 31.12.1992, so as to make her ineligible for the 1995 Employees’ Pension Scheme which came into operation on and from 1st April, 1993.  

20. Dr. Padia’s submissions regarding the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a ’service giver’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and respondent within the concept of ’master and servant’. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of ’consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant

for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.

21. In fact, the same proposition has been explained in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 (1) SCC 98], wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees’ Provident Fund Schemes it was held as follows: "A perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a ’service’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a ’consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge that the services under the Scheme are rendered free of charge and, therefore, the Scheme is not a ’service’ under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and rightly

come to the conclusion that the Act was applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that its member was a ’consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) and the Scheme was a ’service’ under Section 2(1)(o)."

22. Several other earlier decisions were also referred to, where a similar view has been expressed 9. In view of the ruling of the Apex Court in Bhavani case, learned Amicus submitted that nature of the dispute and the particular subject to which the dispute is related assume importance and have necessarily to be looked into for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the employee complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not. In view of Bhavani judgement and similar view taken in a number of other cases, it is clear that matters pertaining to the employees PF schemes as also the pension schemes for which the employees are required to contribute have been regarded as being covered by the definition of consumer dispute with reference to their maintainability under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This being the well settled legal position, the cases where such matters, namely, the employees PF schemes, pension schemes or family pension schemes or similar other matters are administered by the employers themselves rather than through a separate designated authority like Provident Fund Commissioner/ Pension Authority etc. then the employer itself assumes the role of service giver and complaints in respect of such matters made by the employees can be maintained before the consumer Fora qua such employers. This, however, does not come in conflict with the general proposition which lays down that an employee is not a consumer qua his employer with reference to his service matters as such. The distinguishing feature being related to the aspect of contribution being made by the employees and the service being rendered by the administering authority under such a scheme. Elaborating her point, she drew our attention to the order dated 8.7.2008 of the National Commission in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Lila Ram [IV (2008) CPJ 146 (NC)] wherein the dispute pertaining to the payment of interest on the retiral benefits during the period of alleged delay was treated to be a service matter falling outside the purview of a consumer dispute and hence not maintainable before the consumer forum. Applying the ratio of Bhavani case, learned Amicus argued that the Fora below were right in holding the dispute as a consumer dispute maintainable before them and there is no force in the submissions made by counsel for the opposite parties.  

10. After considering the submissions made before us by the parties as noted above, we do not find merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner. The features of the pension scheme in question clearly indicate that there is element of contribution by the employee and hence any action of the administering authority, be it a separately designated authority or the employer itself, can be challenged with reference to the criteria of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice since the contribution by the employee would constitute the requisite consideration and the same makes disputes pertaining to the operation of such a scheme as maintainable before the consumer Fora

11. In view of the foregoing position, we are convinced that the complaint of respondent No.1 was maintainable before the Fora below and no fault could be found with their having proceeded to deal with it on merits.

12. Coming to the merits, we find that the petitioner Bank has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds (apart from the plea that the respondent No.1 is not a consumer and her complaint is not maintainable before the consumer forum):- (i) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the complainant has been paid all the retirement benefits for which she was eligible at the time of her exiting the service of the Bank and hence it was wrong in observing that complainant is entitled for pension because she has worked with the Bank for 25 years. (ii) The employee by exiting the service is eligible for the terminal benefits as per the then prevailing service rules and the said benefits have been paid to her. The question in the present case is as to whether any subsequent agreement between the workmen unions and the banks is applicable to the complainant or not. Since the interpretation of the signatory to the agreement is that it is not applicable to the complainant, it is submitted that the consumer Fora have no power to decide such dispute to hold that the complainant is covered under the agreement. (iii) While deciding another complaint of the present complainant bearing No.1908 of 2010, the District Forum held that n our view admittedly complainant was employee of OP-2; hence dispute between complainant and her employer OP-2 cannot be treated as consumer dispute There is no relationship of consumer and service provide between the complainant

and OP-2 (employer). (iv) The complainant is not a party to the Bipartite settlement/agreement in question and hence she has no locus standi to challenge the same. (v) The Fora below failed to appreciate that the interpretation given by the Indian BanksAssociation (respondent No.2/opposite party No.2) that the agreement of extending the pensionary benefits to class of workmen / employees is not applicable to the employees who have left the service of the bank under the Exit Policy has been challenged in the High Court of Karnataka which is the appropriate authority to decide the matter. (vi) The complainant has not retired from Bank service on attaining superannuation or under the voluntary retirement scheme but has taken

exist option and hence cannot be considered as retired from the services of the bank under the normal course. The complainant did not change the option from contributory provident fund to pension scheme when he had such an option to do so and opted to continue with the contributory provident fund. When she left the job of the bank, she was only eligible for the contributory provident fund and she received the same. At subsequent stage, the complainant cannot claim that she is eligible for pension.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the foregoing grounds and vehemently urged that having opted for retiral benefits available under the Exit Option Scheme, the complainant/ respondent could not be permitted to go back on her option and allowed to be treated as a voluntarily retired employee to qualify and be entitled for pension under the new scheme. He submitted that Fora below erred in holding the complainant as entitled for the new pension scheme and ignoring the letter dated 26.8.2010 received from Indian Banks Association which clearly indicates that the employees who retired under the Exit Option Scheme are not eligible for one more option under the Bipartite settlement. In view of this, the

District Forum and the State Commission went beyond their jurisdiction while returning their finding in favour of the complainant so as to hold him entitled for pension under the new scheme in terms of the Bipartite agreement dated 27.4.2010.  The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set aside since it is not based on proper appreciation of the facts and the legal position in this regard. 

14. Perusal of the written objections filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, memorandum of appeal filed while challenging the order of the District Forum before the State Commission and the revision petition now filed before us makes an interesting reading which shows that the petitioner itself is not sure of the reasons or grounds based on which the claim of the complainant could be rejected. In the written statement before the District Forum it has taken the plea that the letter dated 30.7.2010 of the complainant is not in accordance with the Form prescribed under circular dated 28.8.2010. It is also submitted that on 30.7.2010, the option to opt for the pension scheme under the new pension scheme was not in force and hence the complainant could not have given such an option to the bank in the letter relied upon by her. So much so that the petitioner Bank went to the extent of calling the letter in question relied upon by the complainant as a fabrication to which no credence could be given and that such a latter could not be the basis for initiating complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Simultaneously, the petitioner Bank had also denied having received the letter in question from the complainant. Later on, in the memo of appeal as also in the revision petition filed by the petitioners, there is no plea regarding the failure of the complainant / respondent to file an option for the new pension scheme in the prescribed form within the specified period of 60 days

from 28.8.2010 to 26.10.2010 as per the circular of the petitioner Bank and hence not being eligible for consideration to the grant of pension under the new pension scheme. This obviously indicates that the plea taken by the petitioner Bank before the two Fora below was contradictory and it appears that the petitioner itself is not sure about the basis on which the pension under the new scheme could be denied to the complainant. The complainant in her complaint as well as objections to the revision petition has submitted specific details of dispatch of her letter dated 30.7.2010 which was received by the petitioner Bank on 11.8.2010. It has also been submitted in the written objections to the revision petition that the complainant had also sent her option in the prescribed form through Staff Training Centre, State Bank of Mysore, Mysore as can be seen from letter dated 14.10.2010 addressed to the Chief Manager, PGP Department of the Head office of the petitioner bank placed at page 59 of the written objections filed by the complainant. In fact, the petitioner bank has neither placed any proof of non-receipt of the letter of 30th July 2010 in question nor any reason has been put forth by the petitioner Bank as to why the complainant could not be asked to furnish the option in the prescribed form, if that was really the ground for rejecting her request for grant of pension. Keeping in view this and also the contents of the new Bipartite agreement as circulated by the petitioner Bank

itself vide its letter dated 28.8.2010, we do not see any reason to hold a different view than the view taken by the Fora below while returning their concurrent finding in favour of the complainant. The District Forum in its detailed order has scrutinized the claim of the complainant and we consider it appropriate to reproduce the reasons recorded by the District Forum in paras 9 and 10 of its order:- .

To understand and know whether the complainant is entitled to the benefits of the scheme/agreement or not we have to look to provisions of the agreement/scheme. Clause-D(a)of the scheme reads thus:- hose who were in the service of the Banks prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Association Banks of State Bank of India, did not opt for pension and had retired after that date Clause3(a), (b)&(C)andClause-7 reads thus:- ere in service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior to the date of this Joint Note Exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the pension Fund and, Refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accured thereon received by the officer on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause (3), (4) and (5) of this joint Note. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank contribution to provident fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 16% of the said amount of bank contribution to provident fund and interest thereon received by the officer on retirement. Officers who ceased to be in service on or after 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of Indian on account of voluntary retirement under

special scheme after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years, shall be eligible to exercise an option to join the pension scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned for retiring officers opting for joining the scheme. Reading these clauses conjunctively, these schemes/agreement benefits is available to the persons who were in the service of the Nationalized Banks earlier to 29/09/1995 and also to the employees who were in service in any other Associated Banks of State Bank of India including the opposite party Bank who were in servicer earlier to 26/03/1996. The complainant who had joined the service of the opposite party Bank on 18/11/1981, hence this scheme benefit is available and applicable to her. 10.

Further, according to Clause3(a), as she was joined the service on 18/11/1981, she is entitled to the benefits under this scheme, she has to give it in writing within 60 days from the date of coming into force, her option to become the member. She had to refund the entire amount of Bank contribution, and interest accrued thereon received by the officer on retirement together with her share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated etc. on the individual basis, the payment over and above the bank contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the amount of Bank contribution to Provident Fund and thereon received by the officer on retirement and according to Clause-7 the person who has been put in 15 years of service and retired are also entitled to the benefit of the scheme. Thus, the complainant has qualified to be the member of this scheme

and entitled to the benefits under the scheme. The opposite party had declined to grant the relief to her. Hence, it is nothing but deficiency in service. 

15. We agree with the view taken by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission by its impugned order. By their own admission, the petitioners had submitted in their pleadings that the claim of the complainant could not be considered because she did not lodge her claim within a period of 60 days in the prescribed proforma in accordance with the circular of the petitioner and hence the same could not be  entertained. Of course, simultaneously the petitioner had also stated that she is not entitled to get the benefit of new pension scheme because she had already retired on 30.4.2007 under the Exit Policy Scheme. There is thus an obvious contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner Bank before the Fora below. In case the complainant was not entitled to the pension under the new settlement, her non-submission of the claim in the prescribed form within the specified period could not be the reason for

non-consideration of her claim by the petitioner Bank. We have also noticed that no specific reason has been put forth by the petitioner Bank either before the Fora below or before us as to why the petitioner who had put in 25 years of service before taking retirement under the Exit Policy Scheme would not be entitled to exercise second option under the new settlement for getting pension. The circular of the Bank and new settlement itself, a copy of which has been placed on record by the complainant at pages 127 to 132 of the Paper Book, show that there is no specific exclusion of the employees who had retired under the Exit Policy Scheme which would bar them from exercising the second option for pension scheme. It is also

important to note that even though the petitioner Bank relies on the clarificatory note dated 26.8.2010 issued by the Indian BanksAssociation indicating that the employees who retired under the Exit Policy Scheme are not eligible for one more option, the Indian BanksAssociation which was opposite party No.2 before the District Forum and being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum had earlier gone in appeal challenging that order along with petitioner Bank, significantly did not challenge the impugned order of the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum. In fact, the petitioner Bank itself chose not to implead the Indian BanksAssociation even as a respondent and it was only by a later application that the

Indian BanksAssociation was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the petition. All this demonstrates weakness and fallacy in the stand taken by the petitioner Bank while challenging the impugned order. It also needs to be appreciated that in this case when the settlement is signed by a number of parties, the interpretation of the provisions of such settlement cannot be left to the sole discretion of the Indian Banks Association alone. Para 14 of the Bipartite settlement specifically provides as under:- ny difference of opinion regarding interpretation of any of the provisions of this Settlement, the matter will be taken up only at the length of the Indian Banks Association and the Workmen Unions for discussion and settlement

16. In view of the contents of para 14 reproduced above, the clarificatory letter of 26.8.2010 on which so much reliance has been placed by the petitioner Bank in support of its case loses much of its significance in relation to the present case. In the absence of any averment to the effect that the clarification given by the Indian Banks Association (Respondent No.2) is based on any further consultation held by the Indian Banks Association with the workmen unions regarding denial of the option or non-availability of giving fresh option for pension scheme of the complainant, the clarificatory letter of 26.8.2010 cannot provide ground/basis to the petitioner Bank for denying the claim of the complainant. In any case, it is important to note that the Indian Banks Association itself has not challenged the impugned order by filing a  revision petition against it.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which would call for our interference with it. Consequently, the revision petition fails with the parties bearing their own costs.

......................

SURESH CHANDRA

PRESIDING MEMBER