2.6 The R2Bank filed Writ Petition bearing No.
The Ld.
The Appellant has admitted in her Statement of Claim dated 20.03.2006, that she declined to accept any of these jobs on the ground that such jobs were either temporary in nature, or the claimant did number possess the experience or workknowledge to take up such jobs.
In addition, as a special case, the Bank paid Compensation, which was equivalent to 15 days salary for every companypleted year of service.
The R2Bank filed its Written Statement and companytested the claim of the Appellant, stating that the Appellant was number a workman under the I.D. Act, 1947.
The High Court vide Interim Order dated 27.07.2012 directed payment of a monthly sum of Rs.
The Management admittedly offered her four alternate jobs of i Business Development Officer, ii Customer Service Officer, iii Clearing Officer, and iv Banking Services Officer.
2.2 In May 2005, the post of Senior Confidential Secretary became redundant, as the Officer with whom the Appellant was attached, left the services of the R2Bank.
2.13 The Appellant has assailed the Judgment dated 14.07.2017 and Order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the Division Bench in the L.P.A. and the Review Petition, by the present S.L.P.s.
Conciliation proceedings were companymenced between the Appellant and R2Bank, wherein the Appellant made the following claims HEADS AMOUNT INR Severance 69,99,600.00 Provident Fund 8,90,111.60 Gratuity 3,81,209.00 Leave Encashment 86,541.40 Compensation Notice Pay 8,17,071.00 TOTAL 91,74,533.00 The Bank, in response, offered the following package HEADS AMOUNT INR Severance 32,79,600.00 Provident Fund 8,90,111.60 Gratuity 3,81,209.00 Leave Encashment 86,541.40 Compensation Notice Pay 8,17,071.00 TOTAL 57,29,533.00 The only difference between the two parties was with respect to the amount of Severance payable to the Appellant.
The Appellant was offered several job opportunities, however, she did number choose any of these offers.
2.7 During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Appellant had filed an Application under S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947 before the Delhi High Court seeking interim maintenance.
The Claim was opposed by the R2Bank.
Briefly stated, the factual matrix in which the present S.L.P. has been filed are summarized as under 2.1 The Appellant was appointed on 01.04.1986 as a Lady Confidential Secretary by the 2 nd Respondent HSBC Bank, hereinafter referred to as the R2Bank .
It is relevant to numbere that the Appellant did number raise any claim for reinstatement to the R2Bank.
2.11 Aggrieved by the Judgment Order dated 12.04.2017 in W.P. C 11334/2018, the Appellant filed L.P.A. No.
467/2017, and Order dated 13.09.2017 passed in Signature Not Verified P. No.
The High Court vide Interim Order dated 22.03.2013 remanded the matter to the CGIT for fresh companysideration on the point whether the Appellant companyld be companysidered to be a Workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
58,330/ per month which was as per her last drawn salary.
36513/2012 to challenge the Order dated 24.08.2012, came to be dismissed vide Order dated 07.01.2013.
The total amount of outstanding loan was approximately Rs.
2.8 Aggrieved by the Order dated 27.07.2012, the R2 Bank filed an L.P.A. before the Delhi High Court to challenge the amount awarded to the Appellant u S. 17B. The Division Bench vide Order dated 24.08.2012, reduced the monthly sum payable to Rs.
8,17,071/. 2.4 The Appellant raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act on 03.10.2005, and sought enhancement of the severance package paid to her.
The Bank terminated her service, and paid 6 months companypensation in lieu of Notice as per the companytract of employment.
The total amount paid to the Appellant was Rs.
22,16,702/. The Appellant challenged proceedings for recovery initiated by the R2Bank before the Delhi High Court in W.P. C No.
P. C 11344/2009 before the Delhi High Court, to challenge the Award passed by the CGIT.
The S.L.P. filed by the Appellant being S.L.P. C No.
Each of these jobs were in the same pay scale.
8,17,071/, which was the companypensation paid at the time of termination.
467/2017 before the Division Bench.
The Ld.
Her services were utilized by giving her some other duties for the time being, till alternate jobs companyld be offered to her.
CGIT passed an Award dated 01.06.2009, and directed the R2Bank to re instate the Appellant, with full terminal benefits.
2.3 On 01.10.2005, the Bank issued a Letter terminating the services of the Appellant on the ground that her current job had become redundant.
The Bank further stated that they had followed the procedure outlined under the I.D. Act, while terminating the services of the Appellant.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The present S.L.P.s arise out of the impugned Judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed in L.P.A. No.
Since the parties were unable to arrive at a settlement, the companyciliation proceedings failed.
CGIT directed the R2Bank to re instate the Appellant with companytinuity of service, full back wages, and all companysequential benefits.
2.9 The Appellant also raised a claim for waiver of the outstanding amount of a Housing Loan availed by her during the companyrse of her service, which was outstanding on the date of her termination.
The Bank had offered a generous severance package, which she was number prepared to accept.
2.12 The Appellant filed Review Petition No.
The CGIT passed a fresh Award dated 15.07.2015 holding the Appellant to be a workman under the I.D. Act, 1947.
8,17,071/ paid at the time of termination, the litigation expenses, and the amounts paid under S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The Appellant accordingly has been paid back wages u S. 17B at Rs.
The Writ Petition was kept pending during the pendency of the remand.
Subsequently, on 23.04.1992 the Appellant came to be promoted as a Senior Confidential Secretary to the Senior Manager North India of HSBC.
380/2017 of the Delhi High Court, Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2018.12.03 170042 IST Reason wherein the High Court dismissed the L.P.A filed by the Appellant against the 2nd Respondent HSBC Bank.
75,000/ to the Appellant, towards Interim Maintenance u S. 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The Appellant was directed to refund the entire amount except the sum of Rs.
2.5 The Appellant filed her Statement of Claim dated 20.03.2006, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal referred to as the CGIT claiming inter alia an enhanced severance package, waiver of outstanding Housing Loan, and full pension.
