Bank of baroda

BANK OF BARODA
14.
The Bank has filed an appeal on May 11, 2005 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the
order-in original no. D/ST/02/Offence/2005 dated January 28, 2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Central
Excise, Vadodara II for payment of service tax, for the period between July 16, 2001 and September 9, 2004, on
the commission earned on the service of collection of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax and imposing
penalty. The total disputed amount is Rs. 42,614,504. The appeal has been heard and orders are awaited.
Labour related cases
1.
The workmen of the Bank, represented by Bank of Baroda Employees’ Union, West Bengal, have initiated proceedings
against the Bank (Reference No. 5 of 2004) on May 20, 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. The workmen
have submitted that under the “Scheme for Reimbursement of Educational Expenses incurred by Employees for
their Children”, introduced by a circular (No. HO:BR:89/45) dated March 1, 1997, an employee was entitled to an
annual payment ranging between Rs. 600 and Rs. 1500. They have further submitted that there was no indication
that the said benefits under the Scheme were being given to the workmen merely as a temporary scheme. The
benefits available to the workmen under the said Scheme were extended by two subsequent circulars. The workmen
have submitted that by a circular (No. HO/BR/95/69) dated April 16, 2003 the Bank suddenly withdrew the said
Scheme and has instructed its branches/offices not to make any reimbursements under the Scheme from 2003
onwards. As per the workmen, as the said Scheme had been in operation since 1997, it had matured into a
‘condition of service’ as a ‘customary concession or privilege’ under item No. 8 of the fourth schedule to the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that effecting a change in the conditions of service applicable to workmen in
respect of a matter specified in the fourth schedule of the said Act without complying with the mandatory provisions
of section 9A of the said Act is a nullity and 
non est
in law. Therefore, the workmen have prayed that the said
circular dated April 16, 2003 be quashed and the Bank be directed to continue the benefits made available to the
workmen under the Scheme and to refund the amount recovered from the workmen. The Bank has submitted that
the Scheme was a welfare activity undertaken under the auspices of the Staff Welfare Fund and cannot be
construed as a service condition of the employee and an Industrial Dispute can not be raised in that regard. The
matter is pending.
2.
Certain ex-employees of the Bank who had opted for Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme,
2001 (BOBEVRS-2001) have filed writ petitions before various High Courts being Civil Writ No. 2891 of 2002
before the Chandigarh High Court, W.P.No. 5304 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
W.P.No. 3237 of 2002 before the High Court, Bombay, W.P.4261 of 2003 before the High Court, Madras and
W.P.No. 3564 of 2003 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. The said ex-employees have submitted that since
they have retired under BOBEVRS, 2001, they were deprived of the benefit of 5 years additional service to which
they were entitled to in terms of Regulation 29 of Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension
Regulations). Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations provides that the qualifying service of an employee retiring
voluntarily under the Pension Regulations shall be increased by a period not exceeding 5 years, subject to the
condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years
and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the Bank
be directed to grant the benefit of 5 years additional service to such employees in terms of Regulation 29 of the
Pension Regulations. The Bank has contended that retirement granted under BOBEVRS-2001 is neither retirement
nor deemed to be retirement under Pension Regulations and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to 5 years
additional service in terms of Regulation 29. The matter is pending.
3.
Five writ petitions have been filed before the High Courts at Mumbai (W.P.No. 1092 of 2003), Calcutta (W.P.No.
4297 of 2003 & W.P.No. 4306 of 2003) and Allahabad (W.P.No. 9396 of 2003 & W.P.No. 17129 of 2003). Three of
these petitions have been filed by Dwarkanath Singh, Ramesh Chandra Trivedi and Kalyan Kumar Sengupta, ex-
employees of the Bank and two by registered trade unions, All Indian Bank of Baroda Employee Federation and
Bank of Baroda Employees Association. The petitioners have challenged the Bank’s decision, issued via circular
No.BCC:BR:95/31 dated January 30, 2003, to fix the date of retirement on the last day of the month in which the
Award Staff employees attain the age of superannuation. Prior to this circular, such date was the last day of the
calendar year in which such employees attain the age of superannuation. The Bank filed a transfer petition (Transfer
Petition (Civil) No. 545-549 of 2003) before the Supreme Court praying for the transfer of the above writ petitions
to one High Court or the Supreme Court in view of the common questions involved and the Supreme Court by its
order dated October 4, 2004 has transferred all the abovementioned writ petitions to the High Court, Mumbai to be
heard along with W.P.No. 1092 of 2003. The petitions are pending.

---

313
4.
Associations of retired officers/employees of Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, State Bank of Saurashtra and Union
Bank of India filed a special civil application (Special Civil Application No. 16623 of 2004) on December 20, 2004
before the High Court, Ahmedabad against the CMDs of Bank of India, Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India,
the Managing Director of State Bank of Saurashtra, the Secretary of Indian Banks’ Association, Union of India and
others. The Indian Banks’ Association by its letter No.PD/CIR/76/G2/337 dated June 28, 2003, directed the respondent
banks to incorporate certain amendment, as approved by the Central Government, in their Pension Regulations.
The said amendments provide that the respondent banks would be liable to pay difference between the normal
(full) monthly pension and commuted (reduced) pension in case commutation amount is not paid simultaneously
with the payment of the pension, but such payment shall be made only in such cases which arise after July 1,
2003. The petitioners have submitted that because of the said cut-off date, employees whose claims are pending
with the respondent banks for full pension before July 1, 2003 shall not be able to avail the beneficial provisions
of the proposed amendment. The petitioners have prayed that the Central Government be directed to withdraw its
approval for the proposed amendment and that the respondent banks be directed to set the said cut-off date as
November 1, 1993 instead of July 1, 2003. The Bank has contended that the introduction of the cut-off date is not
arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has submitted that the introduction of the cut-off date is to
avoid any complications arising out of the application of the amendment to past transactions. The matter is pending.
5.
The Industrial Tribunal, Patna gave an award dated November 20, 2003 in Reference Case No. 177 of 1999/8C of
2001 whereby the Bank was directed to immediately offer permanent employment to one Krishna Kumar. Krishna
Kumar had been working in the Bank since September 1993 but had not been regularized. The Bank did not
implement the award and filed a writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5746 of 2004) before the High Court,
Patna to quash the said award dated November 20, 2003. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Patna, lodged
a complaint dated November 9, 2004, under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patna, registered as Complaint Case No. 3147(M) of 2004, against M.K. Parekh, Deputy General
Manager of the Bank alleging a breach of section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the said award of the
Industrial Tribunal was not implemented. Krishna Kumar was made a regular employee of the Bank on December
11, 2004. The Bank, by letter dated December 22, 2004, has informed the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),
New Delhi about the implementation of the award by the Bank and has requested him to get the complaint case
before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna closed. M.K. Parekh filed an application under section 205 of Code of Criminal
Procedure on April 7, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna praying for exemption from personal appearance,
which application was rejected by order dated June 2, 2005. The Bank has filed a revision petition bearing
Criminal Revision No. 602 of 2005 before the High Court, Patna against the said order. The revision petition along
with the writ petition bearing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5746 of 2004 is pending before the High Court, Patna.
6.
Bank of Baroda Retired Employees Welfare Wing, Bareilly and 48 employees of erstwhile Bareilly Corporation
Bank filed a writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49044 of 2002) in November, 2002 before the High Court,
Allahabad against the Finance Secretary (Government of India), RBI, the Bank and the Zonal Manager (West Zone)
of the Bank. The petitioners have prayed that the pension scheme available to erstwhile members of Bareilly
Corporation Bank should be on par with the one available to the employees of the Bank. The erstwhile Bareilly
Corporation Bank Limited was merged with Bank of Baroda vide Ministry of Finance Notification dated June 1,
1999. The petitioners have submitted that the Bank had assured that within the period not exceeding 3 years from
the date of amalgamation, the service conditions and all service benefits of the Bank shall be granted to the
erstwhile employees of Bareilly Corporation Bank Limited. The Bank has contended that the petitioners are not
entitled to the pension scheme of the Bank as they had not opted for pension in terms of the industry level Pension
Settlement of 1993 and had also not transferred the employer’s provident fund contribution to the Bank. The matter
is pending.