Pension entitlement requires strict fulfillment of mandatory qualifying service and prescribed age criteria.

The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank and confirmed on 17.02.1979

In 1989, he left for abroad and remained absent for a prolonged period

Upon his return in 2004, his request to rejoin service was denied; the Bank subsequently issued a letter on 21.07.2008 declaring he had voluntarily retired, effective 12.12.1998

The appellant sought pensionary benefits via a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act)

The Labour Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed pensionary rights under Section 33C(2)

This dismissal was upheld by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which ruled that the appellant had not established a pre-existing right to pension

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court

Whether a claim for pensionary benefits can be entertained by a Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act when the entitlement is disputed by the employer.

Whether the appellant is eligible for pension under Rule 22(i)(a) or 22(i)(c) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955.

Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which functions as an execution proceeding and requires a "pre-existing right" for maintainability

Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, which mandates twenty years of pensionable service for entitlement

Rule 22(i)(a) further requires the attainment of fifty years of age

Rules 7 and 20 specify that pensionable service commences only from the date of confirmation in service

Assistant General Manager, SBI v. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2020) regarding the equivalence of voluntary cessation and retirement

Rugmini Ganesh v. SBI (2018) regarding the inclusion of probation periods in qualifying service

The Court first observed that while the lower courts dismissed the petition on the technical ground of non-maintainability under Section 33C(2) due to the absence of a pre-existing right, it would adjudicate the matter on merits

Regarding Rule 22(i)(c), the Court found the appellant failed to meet the 20-year service requirement; since pensionable service is reckoned from the date of confirmation (17.02.1979) to the date of cessation (12.12.1998), the total duration was only 19 years, 9 months, and 25 days

Furthermore, the Court determined that the appellant’s departure constituted "voluntary abandonment of service" following unauthorized absence, rather than a "voluntary retirement" as required by Rule 22(i)(c)

Under Rule 22(i)(a), the appellant was doubly disqualified as he neither completed 20 years of service nor attained the mandatory age of 50 years at the time of cessation

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on precedents, noting that even if the probation period were included in the calculation, the failure to meet the age criterion remained an absolute bar to eligibility

The Court concluded that the appellant did not satisfy the cumulative conditions of 20 years of pensionable service and the attainment of 50 years of age under Rule 22(i)(a)

Additionally, Rule 22(i)(c) was held inapplicable because the cessation of service was a result of voluntary abandonment rather than a sanctioned voluntary retirement

The orders of the High Court and Labour Court were upheld