In D Pal & Co v MCD, ILR (2007) Supp(6) Delhi 175, the Delhi High Court, interpreting section 28(b) of the Contracts Act, held that prescriptive clauses restricting a party`s right to commence legal proceedings or providing for an exemption from liability for a period shorter than that provided for by law were void. Reference was also made to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co Ltd v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co, (1997) 4 SCC 366, which annulled the absence of a remedy before a court within a shorter period than required by law under section 28. It should be noted that earlier cases Food Corpn of India v. New India Assurance Co Ltd (1994) 3 SCC 324 and H P State Forest Co Ltd v. United India Insurance Co Ltd v. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. It is clear from IBA`s circular that IBA was determined to issue the abovementioned circular since BOB`s request for SLP and review in S K Kool & Girish Shukla was rejected. `On the basis of the legal opinion obtained by the bank, it appealed against the decision of 11.12.2013. Meanwhile, another similar case concerning Mr Girish Shukla (SCA 9092/2008) was handed down before the Supreme Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, the decision of 15.4.2014 against the bank on the basis of the decision in the Kool case. Bank filed SLP with the Supreme Court against the order of 15.4.14, so that later this case could also be filed with the honorable Supreme Court with the request for review/referral in the Kool case. Based on Bank of Baroda`s request to IBA to engage in the SLP.
As the issue at issue had industry-wide implications and concerned all public service broadcasters, the Board of Directors had agreed to the bank`s request at its meeting on 30.5.2014 and IBA had contributed to the SLP. Following the rejection of the request for review, a prudent person/entity (including IBA) should have immediately advised suo moto banks to universally apply SC`s decision to all employees who were dismissed, forcibly retired or dismissed. But it did not act immediately. But for fear of a new reaction from the judiciary, the IBA has now issued Circular No. CIR/HR &IR/KU/M1/1004 of 30 June 2015. [Click here to read the contents of this circular sent by the IBA to all bank heads. www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/Legal-Cases/IBA-circular-30062015-Kool-Case.pdf ] In this circular dated 30. In June 2015, IBA astutely advised, which will only lead to another round of litigation and delays in the retirement of eligible civil servants in these categories. The IBA circular states: The question now arises whether, as proposed by the IBA, by amending Regulation 22 « Expiry of past service » for workers who have been dismissed, forcibly retired or dismissed from the service, it will only be enforceable against workers who have been forced to resign in the absence of a VRS concept [as acknowledged by the IBA in its communication to the DFS with communication of 06.08.2012] and also in absentia Dismissals of workers under a bilateral agreement? [See article 522 of the Shastry Award] As a result of the IBA circular, most banks will, without reason, apply these guidelines for the allocation of staff only despite the fact that SC has not distinguished between staff and assignment staff. Although 7 days have passed since the publication of this circular, we have not yet read any reaction from the UFBU or the officers` union. In AllBankingSolutions.com we will await the response of the union leaders. They need to take the matter seriously and not just complete a formality by sending a letter to IBA.
Section 28 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 (the « Contracts Act ») seeks to nullify agreements, including those that absolutely prevent the parties from asserting their rights under a contract in court or limit the time within which they can enforce their rights; or prevent the parties from asserting their rights by extinguishing the right or exemption from liability after a specified period of time. Do the IBA, UFBU and bankers need more evidence than the harsh Supreme Court comments mentioned above that what they concluded in BPS was employee fraud? P.S: Similar to 6 a, 6 b, 6c, 6d Provision of the bipartisan rule on sanctions, rule 4 H, I, J also provision for officers under the Employee Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976. In the absence of a specific provision on the sanction other than the pension, the favourable interpretation of Article 4 makes it clear that SCE is entitled to all retirement benefits, unless the disciplinary authority so orders in the order imposing the sanction. Banks of hope, the so-called autonomous entities that are « STATE », will follow SC`s judgment against all employees as defined in BEPR Regulation 2 n and not as interpreted and recommended by IBA. Despite this anger on SC`s part, the banks/IBA continued their anti-worker policy and filed an examination with SC, which is clear from the IBA circular above and the relevant paragraph which is as follows: – After the 2013 amendment, two opposing views on the market were as follows: The claim period for a bank guarantee must be mandatory for one year; and banks have the right to limit the period of claim under a bank guarantee to less than one year, but this should not lead to the complete extinction of obligations (i.e. the parties are free to go to court if the claim is submitted within the specified period).