Dismissed

Rajan a v. Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board

Kerala HC13 Feb 2024WP(C)/1220/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four lorry drivers sought pension under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme. The court found Clause 46A requires 10 years' service (9½ deemed sufficient), but each petitioner had under 10 years of qualifying service due to contribution defaults or late joining, with contributions already refunded. Writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajan a Vs Kerala Motor Transport Workers… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1220 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAJAN A AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, ARAYAKANDY HOUSE, THULICHERI, P.O.KAKKAD, KANNUR.

¶8

2 PURUSHOTHAMAN K.P., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MANNAN, CHALAKANDY HOUSE, P.O.ELAYAVOOR, KANNUR.

¶9

3 RAVINDRAN T., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.V.C.KUNHAMBU, ADARSH NIVAS, MADUKOTH P.O. VARAM, KANNUR. 4 CHANDRAN K., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, KOMATH HOUSE, P.O.EACHUR, KANNUR. BY ADVS. K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT EXECUTIVES OFFICER, KANNUR670002.

¶12

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, HARISREE BUILDING, MWRA 14, KOCHUPILAMOODU, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691016. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶13

BY ADV K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P (C) No.1220/2020

-2-

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that they have been denied pension in terms of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Scheme (In short 'the Scheme') in spite of the fact that all of them are eligible for pension in terms of the said scheme.

¶19

The brief facts are that the petitioners are Lorry Drivers who were driving their own vehicles. According to them they had made regular contributions to the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund Board (In short 'the Board') and though they became members of the scheme only later they had paid the contributions to make up the short fall and they were therefore entitled to the benefit of pension under the Scheme.

¶20

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board.

¶21

The provisions of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Scheme as amended by Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund (Amendment) Scheme, 2000 indicate that eligibility for pension is only on completion of 10 years of service. The proviso to Clause 46A indicates that only the persons who have 9 ½ years of service will be deemed to have completed 10 years of service for the purposes of grant of benefits under the Scheme. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the facts and circumstances of this case. In so far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned there was

¶22

W.P (C) No.1220/2020

¶23

-3-

¶24

default in payment of contributions. It is seen that though the 1^st petitioner paid contribution from June 2005 to October 2013 there was default in payment of contributions from November 2013 to May 2015. Considering the default, the 1^st petitioner is not entitled to pension as his service is only 101 months i.e., 8 years and 5 months. It is seen that the 1^st petitioner was granted refund of the amount of contributions together with interest through proceedings dated 31-03-2018. In so far as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned like in the case of the 1^st petitioner there was default in payment of contribution to the Board and considering the defaulted period, the 2^nd petitioner has only 8 years and one month service and therefore the 2^nd petitioner is also not entitled to pension under the Scheme. It is also seen that the amounts remitted by the 2^nd petitioner as contribution were refunded to him as per proceedings issued on 15-03-2017. In so far as the 3^rd petitioner is concerned, it is seen that even at the time of joining the fund, he had crossed 54 years of age and he has only 8 years and 7 months service from June 2005 to December 2013. It is seen that the 3^rd petitioner filed application for refund and the amounts of contribution together with interest were refunded to him on 16-03-20015. The 3^rd petitioner is also not entitled to pension as he has no qualifying service in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. In so far as the 4^th petitioner is concerned it is seen that he became member of the scheme on 29-10-2008. It is seen that though he had 10 years and 5 months

¶25

W.P (C) No.1220/2020

¶26

-4-

¶27

service, he defaulted in payment of contributions and therefore he was not entitled to the benefit of the pension under the Scheme. The amount of contributions together with interest has been refunded to the 4^th petitioner on 31-03-2018.

¶28

In that view of the matter it can only be held that the petitioners have not made out any case for grant of reliefs. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

W.P (C) No.1220/2020

-5-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1220/2020

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASS BOOK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER WITH NECESSARY ENDORSEMENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 8.9.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.11.2019 MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK WITH RELEVANT ENTRIES OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.17.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R 4/3951/JVH/5345/GVW/4852 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION DATED 30.6.17.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R4/12330/17/KMT 13/GVH/8748/9342/3229/GVSE/2461 DATED 31.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2019.

¶36

W.P (C) No.1220/2020

¶37

-6-

¶38

Translation of Exhibit P2	translation of application from Kerala Motor Transport Welfare Fund board
Translation of Exhibit P3	translation of letter from Rajan
Translation of Exhibit P4	translation of pension application from District Labour Officer
Translation of Exhibit P5	translation of show cause notice
Translation of Exhibit P8	translation of letter from Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board
Translation of Exhibit P9	translation of receipt from Ashraya Center
Translation of Exhibit P10	translation of order from Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board
Translation of Exhibit P11	translation of receipt
Translation of Exhibit P12	translation of order from Kerala Motor Welfare Fund Board
Translation of Exhibit P13	translation of letter from the District Executive Officer

Rajan a v. Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajan a v. Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohanan A.K. Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Jose Vs State of Kerala

I.G.Paul Vs Indian Bank

Rajan S. Vs the Pathiyoor Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 1282

Pramod K., Vs University of Kerala

Kerala Plantation Corporation Employees Union(Citu) Vs the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.