SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 137

2002(1) Supreme 446
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.
I.T.C. Ltd. Workers Welfare Association and Anr. -Appellants
versus
The Management of I.T.C. Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 822 of 2002
Decided on 29-1-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants Nos. 1-2 : Shambhu Prasad Singh, Prem Sunder Jha, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Manjula Gupta and M.D. Pandeya, Adlvocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Anil B. Divan, K. Kasturi, Senior Advocates, Ms. Kavita Dahiya, Punit Bhardwaj and Rajan Narain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no infirmity regarding cut off date (24.8.1986) fixed under the Platinum Jubilee Pension Scheme of the Management.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 10 and 12(3)-Pension scheme first introduced in 1977-Later Platinum Jubilee Scheme Pension Plan for the workers who retired from service on or after 24-8-1986 introduced-This pension scheme was result of settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings-Whether can be challenged by individual employee? (No)-Scope of challenge is limited in accordance with Section 12(3)(1) of the Act-Tribunal answering reference in favour of management and against the Union-High Court upheld it-Whether there is any infirmity calling for interference? (No)-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : Admittedly, the settlement arrived at in the instant case was in the course of conciliation proceedings and therefore it carries a presumption that it is just and fair. It becomes binding on all the parties to the dispute as well as the other workmen in the establishment to which the dispute relates and all other persons who may be subsequently employed in that establishment. An individual employee cannot seek to wriggle out of the settlement merely because it does not suit him. (Para 17)

       Viewed in the light of these principles, it cannot be said that the settlement in the present case which is otherwise valid and just suffers from any legal infirmity merely for the reason that one of the clauses in the settlement extends the benefits of life pension scheme only to the employees retiring after a particular date i.e. 24.8.1986. Exclusion of workmen retiring before that date is no ground to characterise the settlement as unjust or unfair. Of course, the allegations of mala fides such as corrupt motives have not been levelled against anyone and that aspect becomes irrelevant here. (Para 24)

       Considering all these factors, we find no legal infirmity in the award of the Tribunal which has been affirmed by the High Court and we say so without going into the subtle question whether the scheme is a new one for all practical purposes or only a revision or liberalization of the pre-existing pensionary benefits. (Para 28)

       Held finally : We see no merit in the appeal and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Para 30)

       

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-Leave granted and appeal taken up for hearing.

2. The first appellant which seems to be a representative body of the retired workmen of Munger Branch of ITC Ltd. and the second appellant who is a member thereof, have assailed the legality of the judgment of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5693 of 1995 dated 10.11.1997. By that judgment the High Court upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, in Reference No. 3/92, following the earlier decision of the High Court reported in 1997(1) PLJ 934, wherein the identical issues were decided against the workmen. The Writ Petition out of which the appeal arises was filed by the second appellant herein challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 13.12.1994.

3. The 1st appellant sought leave of this Court to file the SLP as it was not a party in the Writ Petition out of which this SLP arises. Leave has been granted by us. It may also be noticed that by an order of this Court dated 31.08.2001 on IA 3 of 2001 the 2nd appellant herein, who was respondent No. 3 in SLP, has been transposed as petitioner in the SLP.

4. At the outset, it may be stated that the present SLP was filed with a delay of 460 days. The delay in filing the SLP is sought to be explained in a very casual manner, the only ground stated being "paucity of funds" which on the face of it is as vague as it could be. In the normal course, we should have dismissed the I.A. for condonation of delay and rejected the SLP summarily. However, as arguments have beenadvanced at length on the merits and as the grievance of retired employees is being projected, we do not consider it appropriate to dismiss the SLP on the ground of delay. Hence, leave has been granted and appeal decided on merits.

5. The following dispute between the Management of ITC Ltd. Basudevpur, Munger and their workmen represented by Munger Tobacco Manufacturing Union which is a recognised union was referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal:

"Whether to enforce Platinum Jubilee Scheme Pension Plan for the workers who retired from service on or after 24.8.1986 and to enforce other pension scheme for the workers retired before the 24.8.1986 and to give two types of benefits to both types of workers by the Management of I.T.C. Ltd., Basudeopur Munger is legal and justified? If not, whether the workers who retired before 24.8.1986 from I.T.C. Ltd. Basudeopur Munger are also entitled for the benefits under Platinum Jubilee Pension Plan?"

The learned Presiding Officer answered the reference in favour of the Management and against the Union, having held that the workmen who retired before 24.8.1986 were not entitled to the benefits under the Platinum Jubilee Pension Scheme. By that scheme, the workmen who retired on or after the date afore-mentioned were made eligible to get life pension. It was the contention of the workers -Union before the Tribunal and it is also the contention of the appellants that the benefits should be extended to all those workmen who retired during and after 1977 when the pension scheme was first introduced in this industrial establishment.

6. To have a proper background of the dispute, it is necessary to refer briefly to the pension scheme prevalent prior to the introduction of the Platinum Jubilee Pension Scheme. A settlement entered into on 27.6.1977 paved the way for the introduction of pension scheme for the first time. It applied to the permanent workmen on the rolls of the company who retired on or after 1.6.1977. Under that scheme, the pension was payable for a period of 10 years. By a subsequent settlement dated 22.4.1982, though the period of drawal of pension remained the same, the formula was revised and the maximum pension payable was enhanced to Rs.225/- per month. This benefit under the settlement dated 22.4.1982 governed the workmen who were on the Company s pay roll on the date of signing of the settlement. On the eve of commemoration of platinum jubilee of 1T




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top