Dear friend,
Not only in Co-operative Banks/Societies but also in some other private organizations, denial of arrears of monetary benefits consequent on the belated wage revision agreements to those employees who are not in the service of the establishment on the date of signing of such agreements is followed as a usual practice with a view to reducing the financial burden of the Managements. Trade Unions representing the workmen in such collective bargaining negotiations also meekly join hands with the Managements in such a practice either out of their week bargaining position or out of their callous attitude towards their past members. When such agreements happen to be tripartite settlements u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 Conciliation Officers also get overwhelmingly influenced by the consensus exhibited before them by both the parties and fail to evaluate the legality or ethicality or justifiability of such negative clause of the proposed settlement relating to its retrospective effect independently.
Normally wage settlements have definite periodicity of operation and revision as agreed by the parties subject to the statutory limit in this regard. Similarly, no doubt that prospective or retrospective operation of a revised settlement is a subject-matter of discretion of the parties concerned in view of the possible delay,if any caused by inevitably protracted negotiations. But there should be some propriety in such a discretion. If the revised settlement takes a prospective effect, there is reasonableness in the contention that it would apply in its entirety only to those employees in service on the date of its signing. If it is retrospective, it should apply to all employees including those who were in the service of the establishment and legally permitted to leave the service during the interregnum by way of resignation or retirement on reaching the age of superannuation or dying in harness. How can they be excluded in respect of payment of arrears consequent on the retrospective revision of wages ? Such a negative clause would certainly neither be ethical nor be logical. The arrears you are asking now is only for the period of service already rendered by you. Moreover, resignation of an employee when it is duly accepted and acted upon by the Management is a lawful mode of termination of employment. Perhaps the HR might have just wrongly interpreted the clause in isolation.
So, make a formal claim for arrears of pay revision based on the revised settlement. If it is denied file a claim u/s 33C(2) of the ID Act,1947 before the Labor Court for your area.