The Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited in a labour dispute by overturning a lower court’s decision that had declared the lender’s retirement policy discriminatory.
- •The Banking, Insurance and Finance Union accused the bank of unfair labor practices—arguing that while the bank’s employees in India were allowed to work until 60, those in Kenya were required to retire at 55.
- •The Union demanded a uniform retirement age across all branches and sought to make retirement age a negotiable term in the bank’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
The Kenya Bankers Association (KBA) supported the appeal, saying each bank should set its own policies.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court had sided with the union, declaring the Bank of Baroda’s retirement policy discriminatory. The Bank of Baroda appealed the ruling, citing that retirement age was a contractual issue between the employer and employees—and Union negotiations were not needed.
The lender also pointed to its human resource policies, which had long set the retirement age at 55. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lender that the lower court had overstepped its mandate by rewriting employment contracts. The judges found no legal basis to compel the bank to negotiate retirement age, stating that such decisions should be left to individual agreements rather than collective bargaining.
Out of 35 banks under the KBA umbrella, only three banks did not have a retirement age of 60—The Bank of Baroda included.
The ruling means Bank of Baroda Kenya employees will continue retiring at 55 unless future negotiations lead to a change. The decision could also influence how other banks and companies in Kenya handle retirement policies, reinforcing the principle that contractual terms prevail unless explicitly addressed in labor agreements.
