Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5503 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Union Bank of India
RESPONDENT:
Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2008
BENCH:
G. P. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2007
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5503 OF 2003
O R D E R
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application has been filed by the appellant \026 Bank
for correction of factual submission No. 1 recorded at internal
page 4 of the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2007.
3. In the judgment dated 12.01.2007, this Court recorded
three submissions made by Shri Raju Ramachandran, Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant \026 bank. The first
submission as recorded in the judgment was, \023pension
regulations do not apply to the respondent No. 1 as he is an
award staff\024. This submission appears to have been
mistakenly mentioned in the judgment dated 12.01.2007 and
it needs to be suitably corrected to the extent that \023there was
no scheme/provision of voluntary retirement in the terms and
conditions of service applicable to the award staff to which
respondent No. 1 belonged.
4. The rectification of the above said submission is essential
because this factual mistake has been recorded in the
judgment as a submission of the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant \026 bank due to oversight.
The applicant \026 bank in this application has categorically
submitted that the pension regulations are applicable to all
employees of the bank irrespective of whether they are officers
or award staff.
5. Thus, in the factual situation as noticed above, the first
submission recorded in the judgment dated 12.01.2007 shall
stand rectified and corrected to the above extent which shall
form part of the main judgment. We may make it clear that
this order of change/rectification of the factual mistake of first
submission noticed in the judgment will have no bearing or
effect on the final result of the appeal which was decided on
other issues and contentions on merits.
6. Interlocutory Application stands, accordingly, allowed.