Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.31 seconds)Section 28 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986
46. It was highlighted by this Court in Ambica Quarry
Works Vs. State of Gujarat,(1987) 1 SCC 213:
Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
In Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill
(P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111, this Court held that a little
difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of
difference in the precedential value of a decision.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
49. It is true that the controversy in the case of
Bank of Baroda arose out of the same voluntary retirement
scheme with which we are concerned in this group of
appeals. However, there is vital factual difference in that
case and this group of appeals. Pertinently that was a
case where the employee had completed only 13 years of
service( not even 15 years of service much less 20 years'
service) although he completed 40 years of age at the time
he offered for voluntary retirement. The employee's
42
application therein for voluntary retirement was accepted
by the Bank of Baroda and he was paid all retiral benefits.
However, his request for grant of pension in addition to
the other retiral benefits was not acceded to by the bank.
It was so because he had not completed even 15 years of
service. The employee pursued industrial adjudicatory
process for redressal of his grievance in respect of
non-grant of pension by the bank. The employee's claim
was opposed by the Bank of Baroda contending that in
terms of Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the Pension
Regulations, 1995, the employee was not entitled to
pension. The observations made by this Court in Bank of
Baroda which have been quoted above and relied upon by
the banks in support of their contention have to be
understood in the factual backdrop namely, that the
employee had completed only 13 years of service and,
was not eligible for the pension under the Pension
Regulations,1995 and for the benefit of addition of five
years to qualifying service under Regulation 29(5), an
employee must have completed 20 years of service. The
question therein was not identical in form with the
43
question here to be decided. The following observations
in paragraph 11 of the report in Bank of Baroda are
significant: