Golden Handshake Scheme

2017 PLC(CS)N 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Bank employeeGolden Handshake SchemeEmployee applied for Golden Handshake Scheme but subsequently opted to withdraw the same through an applicationBank accepted the option of Golden Handshake Scheme and directed the employee to be relievedEmployee had sought quashment of proceedings and reinstatement in service with all back benefitsValidityGolden Handshake Scheme was voluntary and eligible employees were at liberty to make their decisionsOption once exercised within prescribed period was irrevocable and could not be withdrawnEmployees opted the scheme which was accepted by the BankEmployees were debarred to withdraw the option even if they withdrew the same before its acceptance

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS)N 85 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.80Suit for declarationGolden Handshake SchemeAd hoc reliefNovation of contractScope

Employer-Bank announced Golden Handshake Scheme; plaintiffs-employees accepted the said option but management of Bank persuaded them to continue their service in view of exigency

Bank announced ad hoc relief but same was not extended to the employees

Validity

Golden Handshake Scheme was an agreement where an offer was given by the management of Bank which was accepted against some consideration

Plaintiffs-employees were conveyed the undertaking that all benefits accruing/admissible in the normal service regulation with Golden Handshake Scheme whichever was higher would be paid to them at the time when Bank would relieve them

Bank could not break a promise or resile unilaterally rather it was bound to remain faithful to the terms and conditions on which plaintiffs-employees were retained in job

Novation of contract was available to all employees including the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs submitted their option like other employees but they were called upon to continue

Non-tendering of notice was not fatal to the suit except that in such a situation Court was to allow not less than three months to submit written statement

Benefit of ad hoc relief was included in the full and final settlement dues of plaintiffs for which claim they filed suit and their suit was decreed

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 PLC 107 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 28 & 29Golden Handshake SchemeRegular workerDefendant company was privatized by government and plaintiffs were its ex-employees

Grievance of plaintiffs was that they were regular workers and were entitled to all benefits under Golden Handshake Scheme

Validity

Nothing by way of documentary or oral evidence was placed on record to show that plaintiffs were unconfirmed employees, daily wagers, contract employees or trainees

Sole reliance of defendant's case was on interpretation of word 'regular workers' which had different connotation than that argued for defendants in the context of the language of Golden Handshake Scheme

Plaintiffs were entitled to payment of four basic salaries for each completed year of service upto 15-5-2006, in accordance with paragraph-1 of the terms and conditions of Golden Handshake Scheme read with the list furnished by defendant

High Court declared that action of defendant of calculating payments under Golden Handshake Scheme from the date of regularization and not from the date of appointment was illegal and without lawful authority

High Court directed the company to make payments of difference between payments already made and the amounts payable, calculated on the basis of date of appointment

Suit was decreed accordingly.

2013 SCMR 238 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25 & 61Golden handshake scheme"Charter of Demands" of employeesEmployer-employee settlement, interpretation of

Port Trust (appellant) introduced an "Early Retirement/Golden Handshake" scheme (Scheme) for its employees (respondents)

Employees in question opted for the Scheme, however, a dispute arose over a clause of the Scheme, which clause stated that commutation would be calculated on the basis of the last "Charter of Demands"

Case of employees was that according to the last "Charter of Demands" a demand for 100% increase in their salaries was made, therefore in terms of the Scheme, commutation was liable to be calculated on their salaries after granting 100% increase

Contention of Port Trust was that subsequent to the "Charter of Demands" a settlement was arrived at between their management and the union of employees, wherein the demand of 100% increase in salaries was not acceded to and an increase to the extent of 16% only was agreed, as such employees were not entitled to the claim raised by them and their commutation was to be calculated in terms of last pay drawn by them

High Court allowed constitutional petition filed by employees and directed Port Trust to calculate commutation of employees by allowing a 100% increase in terms of the "Charter of Demands"

Legality

"Charter of Demands" was a permanent feature and practice prevailing between the Port Trust and union of employees and was presented every two years

"Charter of Demands" once presented to Port Trust was not normally accepted in totality, therefore, negotiations followed and after both parties reached some bilateral understanding, same was accordingly accepted and adopted

"Charter of Demands" contained the demands as well as the agreement arrived at between the Port Trust and the union of employees

"Charter of Demands" for the year 2002 was in force when the Scheme was introduced

Demand of 100% increase in salary/pay scales of all employees was made in the said "Charter of Demands" but it was agreed between the parties that increase would be to the extent of 16% only and not 100%

Additionally it was also agreed between the Port Trust and union of employees that any settlement arrived between them would not be applicable to such employees, who had accepted the Golden handshake scheme and were no longer employees of the Port Trust, therefore, employees in question were not entitled to the claim raised by them

Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment of High Court was set aside.

2013 SCMR 238 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25 & 61Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, R. 2Golden handshake scheme"Charter of Demands" of employeesEmployer-employee settlement, interpretation ofAcquiescence and waiver, rule ofScopeRelinquishment of part of claim in suitEffect

Port Trust (appellant) introduced an "Early Retirement/Golden Handshake" scheme (Scheme) for its employees (respondents)

Employees in question opted for the Scheme, however, a dispute arose over a clause of the Scheme, which clause stated that commutation would be calculated on the basis of the last "Charter of Demands"

Case of employees was that according to the last "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2004 a demand for 100% increase in their salaries was made, therefore in terms of the Scheme, commutation was liable to be calculated on their salaries after granting 100% increase

Contention of Port Trust was that "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2004 was not even in existence when the Scheme in question was announced; that in fact "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2002, was in force at the time of the Scheme, and as per said "Charter of Demands" union of employees demanded 100% increase in salaries, but on account of a subsequent settlement this demand was cut down to 16% and said "Charter of Demands" merged into the settlement, therefore, employees who availed benefit of the Scheme could only ask for dues on account of 16% increase

High Court allowed constitutional petition filed by employees and directed Port Trust to calculate commutation of employees by allowing a 100% increase in terms of the "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2004

Legality

"Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2004 had no relevance and application to the present case and it was neither propounded nor initiated when the Scheme in question was announced

Demands listed in a "Charter of Demands" were neither conclusive nor binding upon the Port Trust, but were only meant for the object of bargaining

"Charter of Demands" was duly negotiated, some demands were accepted, some were rejected/modified, after which they culminated into a settlement, which had all the characteristics of a concluded contract

"Charter of Demands" and its culmination into a "settlement" were two independent and hermetic documents

Scheme in question specifically made reference to the last "Charter of Demands" and not to any "settlement", therefore any relief to the employees could be allowed on the basis of "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2002, however employees in question opted for the Scheme and accepted their dues calculated on the basis of 16% increase without raising any conspicuous objection or registering their protest in such behalf at that time, therefore, they were estopped by their own conduct from agitating their claim at a belated stage

Rule of acquiescence and waiver also stood in the way of employees from agitating their claim

Claim of employees was also barred by time because had the employees initiated their claim by way of a civil suit for recovery of unpaid dues under the Scheme, their suit would have been beyond the prescribed period of limitation

Additionally union of employees had filed a petition in the past before the High Court under S.61 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 seeking almost an akin relief to the present petition on the basis of "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2004, without putting forth therein any plea/claim on the basis of "Charter of Demands" dated 1-4-2002

Said petition was dismissed by the High Court

According to O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. where a claim/relief, which a person was entitled to on the basis of a cause of action, was omitted and relinquished, such person/party was precluded to sue for the claim/relief so omitted

Claim/relief structured by employees in the present case was not distinct from the cause of action in the petition filed in the past before the High Court, therefore, bar of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. was also attracted to the present case

Appeal was allowed accordingly and impugned judgment of High Court was set aside with the consequence that constitutional petition filed before the High Court was dismissed.

2011 PLC 67 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss. 41, 54 & 55Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.Os.12 & 13Golden Handshake SchemeOption for retrenchment/retirement under the SchemeWithdrawal of optionGrievance petitionAppeal

Services of employees were terminated by the authorities on account of floating of scheme called "Premature retirement of employees by Golden Handshake Scheme" which scheme was floated by Insurance Corporation without approval of Federal Government

Scheme revealed that employees who would not opt for the said scheme, would be retrenched under the "last in first out" basis on payment of only one month's salary

Employees who apprehended that they would be otherwise ousted from service under the scheme moved applications for retrenchment/retirement from service; however, on the same day employees gave another application to the authorities that they should be paid their full and final dues on the same day under the said scheme, otherwise their option could be considered as withdrawn

Employees submitted withdrawal of petitions stating that under misconception, coercion, threat of losing the job they had given the option; and that since it was not a voluntary retrenchment, same could not be considered as their wilful acceptance of the scheme

Ignoring statements of withdrawal by the employees, they were retired from the service and were relieved

Labour Court accepted grievance petition against order passed by Insurance Corporation

Validity

In the present case employees gave option as they were threatened of being removed from service after one month only which could be rightly called misconception, misrepresentation, intimidation pressure and coercion

Judgment of Labour Court was correct

Employees were made to opt for retirement and when they realized that it was not in their favour, they made applications for withdrawing said option and their withdrawal was wrongly disallowed

Insurance Corporation, in circumstances was directed to reinstate the employees in service from the date they were wrongly terminated and with full back-benefits.

2009 PLC 349 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 46 & 48Golden Handshake SchemeGrievance applicationAppealRespondent who initially was employed as a Guard in the appellant-Bank, was promoted as Cashier

When a Golden Handshake Scheme was introduced by the appellant-Bank, respondent was alleged to have filed application therein giving option for Golden Handshake Scheme and he was relieved from his job

Respondent disowned said application and moved departmental appeal and subsequently he filed grievance application before the Labour Court, which application was allowed and appellant-Bank was directed to reinstate him in service with payment of full back-benefits

Appellant-Bank had filed appeal against judgment of the Labour Court

At the time of launching the Golden Handshake Scheme and on the date when the respondent allegedly filed application, said scheme was not applicable to cashiers and same was made applicable subsequently to the case of cashiers

Since respondent was a cashier, it would be deemed, that no valid application was filed by the respondent for Golden Handshake Scheme

Subsequent amendment whereby said scheme was made applicable to cashiers, would not imply that earlier application allegedly filed by the respondent was a valid application

Though the respondent had disowned alleged application, but even if same was to be accepted to have been signed by him, even then it would not change the legal position

Once it was considered that the very scheme was not applicable to respondent being cashier on the date when he filed his application, subsequent infrastructure built on the basis of said application would also crumble down, especially when the respondent was not paid amount of Golden Handshake Scheme

No illegality having been found in the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court, appeal filed against said judgment was dismissed.

2004 PLC(CS) 1213 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Golden Handshake SchemePayment of Benevolent Fund GrantPrinciples

Golden Handshake Scheme was totally voluntary in nature and it was optional for the employees of State Bank of Pakistan to accept the same or not

Option under Golden Handshake Scheme once exercised was irrevocable and there was no element of inducement or compulsion to the Scheme

No other payment was to be made after final payment and Benevolent Fund Grant equivalent to ten years payment whereof was to be made in lump sum

Portion of Golden Handshake Scheme could not be stretched to include payment of Benevolent Fund Grant on monthly basis for ten years or till the age of severity years