Dismissed

The Management of v. Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

Madras HC15 Mar 2016WP/17157/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court order. The Court upheld the recognition of the respondent-driver's pre-absorption service in the Civil Supplies Department towards his total service eligibility for pension and gratuity, rejecting the management's claim.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed; the order of the Principal Labour Court was affirmed.

The Management of Vs Thiru. M.Angu Naidu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 15.03.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.17157 of 2011

¶6

The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

M.Angu Naidu

¶9

The Presiding Officer, The Principal Labour Court, Chennai - 600 104. ...Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records, pertaining to the award, dated 29.01.2010, made in C.P.No.15 of 2008, on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Chidambaram

¶12

For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.M.Ramesh

¶13

For Respondent-2 : Court

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner is the Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., and the challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P.No.15 of 2008, dated 29.01.2010.

¶16

The first respondent-workman was working as a driver in the erstwhile Civil Supplies Department of the Government, having been appointed during the year 1965. During the relevant point of time, the said Department was part of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, and this position continued till 01.01.1966. After the said period, a separate Unit was formed for civil supplies, and the first respondent-workman and the other drivers, cleaners, time keepers, who were employed in the

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

said Transport Department were sent to the Civil Supplies Department, and they were working there, until they were retrenched on 02.08.1974. Thereafter, the retrenched drivers, cleaners and timekeepers had submitted various representations to the Government, and the Government took a policy decision in the matter, vide G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 27.11.1972, which has been marked as Ex.P3, before the Labour Court, and the operative portion of the said Government Order reads as follows:-

¶19

"After careful examination of the question, the Government has directed that the retrenched drivers, time keepers and cleaners of the Civil Supplies Department be absorbed in future vacancies in the corresponding categories in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, subject to the condition that their age rule be relaxed only in the case of those, who were within the age limits at the time of their first appointment in the civil supplies department, and that their services in the civil supplies department should be counted for purpose of fixation of pay, increment, leave, pension and retirement benefits. However, such concession need not be extended for purpose of seniority "

¶20

Based on the Government Order, referred to above, the first respondent-workman was absorbed in service as driver in the petitioner-Corporation initially with effect from 01.08.1974 and was paid under the monthly cader, with effect from 19.04.1975. The first respondent continued to serve in the petitioner-Corporation till he attained the age of superannuation i.e, 30.06.1999. As per the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund Rules, a maximum period of 30 years of service has to be rendered for receiving pension. This has been achieved by the first respondentworkman.

¶21

The workman's case is that, the service rendered by him in the Civil Supplies Department prior to his absorption in the petitioner-Corporation should be taken into consideration, and with this prayer, he filed a Claim Petition for computation of the amount at Rs.62,820/-, under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as P.W.1, and marked nine documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9, and on the Management's side, one witness was examined as R.W.1, and four documents were marked, as Exs.R.1 to R.4. The Labour Court took note of Ex.P.3, viz., the Government Order, referred to above, and pointed out that the services rendered by the

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

drivers, cleaners and timekeepers in the Civil Supplies Department should be counted for the purpose of fixation of pay, increment, leave, pension and retirement benefits, however, such concession need not be extended for the purpose of seniority. Thus, when the Government took a policy decision for absorption of retrenched drivers, cleaners and timekeepers, like that of the first respondent, they were granted protection for the services rendered by them in the erstwhile Organization, and on the ground of restructuring of the Department, they happened to be retrenched, and subsequently absorbed in the petitionerCorporation. Thus, taking into consideration the said fact, the gratuity claim of the first respondent has been settled by taking into account the length of service, as 34 years. In the light of the reasons given by the Labour Court, there is no error in the approach adopted by the Labor Court, nor there is any perversity in the order passed by it.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the contention raised before the Labour Court, submitted that the Pension Fund Rules came into force with effect from 01.09.1998, and as per the Pension Fund Rules, the maximum period for receiving pension is 30 years, and the petitioner-Corporation themselves came into existence only on 01.01.1972 and the question of payment pension by reckoning the service rendered by the first respondent-workman in the erstwhile Civil Supplies Department does not arise.

¶25

The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable for more than one reasons. Firstly, the Pension Fund Rules came into force on 01.09.1998, after the first respondent was appointed/absorbed in the petitioner/Corporation. Therefore, whatever rights accrued to the first respondent, prior to the said date, cannot be effaced. Secondly, the gratuity claim has been settled by taking into consideration the total length of service as 34 years, there cannot be different yardstick adopted for computing pension. Hence, the reasons assigned by the Labour Court is perfectly valid, and does not warrant interference of this Court. As the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds to quash the order passed by the Principal Labour Court, this Writ Petition fails, and it is dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Corporation settled gratuity claim of the first respondent only for a period of 25 years, and for the remaining period of 9 years, Civil Supplies Department is liable to pay. However, such contention was not placed before the Labour Court. If that is so, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Department for recovery of proportionate amount, but that shall not have any bearing on the first respondent's entitlement towards payment, as computed by the Labour Court, which has to be paid by the petitioner. Further, if any other deduction have to be made in accordance

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

with the Pension Fund Rules, that can also be done, to which course, the learned counsel for the first respondent has no objection.

¶28

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sd
To
The Presiding Officer,
Principal Labour Court,
Chennai - 600 104.
+1cc to M/s. K.M. Ramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.16532
+1cc to M/s. M. Chidambaram, Advocate, S.R.No.16508
MP(CO)
EU(04/04/2016)
Writ Petition No.17157 of 2011

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Management of v. Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of v. Thiru. M.Angu Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Mallan, President Vs The Deputy Registrar of

R.Parthiban Vs P.S.Elumalai

M/s.Booma Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Provident Fund

V.Ranjith Vs Praveen Ranjan IPS

R.Radhakrishnan Vs The Commissioner

Mrs.Prabha Padmanabhan Vs The Revenue Divisional