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

1984 Supreme(SC) 155

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY; A.P. SEN AND E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Katheeja Bi. Petitioner
Versus
The Superintending Engineer and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 13009 of 1983
Decided on 10-5-1984

Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, Sarla Chandra, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 32 - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 14 - Electricity Supply Act, 1948 - Section 79(c) - Retired as a Line Inspector - Unfortunately died - Claim payment of gratuity - Widow of who retired as a Line Inspector, Grade I, in employment of Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board and who unfortunately died - Failed to get from her late husbands employers certain amounts which she claimed were due to her husband - She knocked continuously, but in vain, at doors of Regional Provident Commissioner , Central Provident Commissioner and Minister for Labour Government of India for several years for redress - In sheer desperation she ultimately turned to this Court as a last resort - Unable to engage a lawyer, she addressed a letter to a learned Judge of Court setting forth her grievance - After being processed in Registry, letter was treated as a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of Constitution - Tamil Nadu Electricity Board made Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Contributory Provident Fund Regulations - Regulation 3 provides for establishment of a fund known as Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Contributory Provident Fund, with effect from Regulations 3-A to 3-K provide for management and administration of fund by Board of Trustees – Held, There was then usual lament that a large number of employees were involved and therefore, cost will be heavy – Court do not understand this argument at all - Does it mean that beneficent legislations and beneficent schemes must be confined to small establishments employing a few workers only - On other hand, it is misleading to say that cost is heavy - Cost is made to appear heavy divorced from size of establishment - Respondent Board to pay to petitioner whole of Special Contribution under Regulation 37 which was payable to her husband and the balance of gratuity payable under Payment of Gratuity Act part of which Court are told has been paid leaving sum unpaid - These amounts should be paid to petitioner with interest at 15% per annum from date on which amounts fell due - Respondent Board should also pay a sum to petitioner towards compensatory costs – Court must add that case had left Court with feeling of uneasiness and distress at plight of helpless persons like petitioner whose repeated representations to those in authority were left uncared for so long despite tediously frequent protestations of social justice - Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:— Smt Katheeja Bi, is the widow of Abdul Salam who retired as a Line Inspector, Grade I, in the employment of the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board on 31-7-76 and who unfortunately died on 15-10-76. Smt. Katheeja Bi failed to get from her late husbands employers certain amounts which she claimed were due to her husband. She knocked continuously, but in vain, at the doors of the Regional Provident Commissioner, Madras, Central Provident Commissioner, New Delhi and the Minister for Labour Government of India for several years for redress. In sheer desperation she ultimately turned to this Court as a last resort. Unable to engage a lawyer, she addressed a letter to a learned Judge of the Court setting forth her grievance. After being processed in the Registry, the letter was treated as a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. A Rule Nisi was issued and the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board have appeared before us through counsel. At our request Sri Gopala Subahmanyam argued the case for the widow as amicus curiae. He presented the case with understanding and thoroughness and we are grateful to him. as also to Dr. Chitaley who presented the employers case with his usual fairness.

2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board made the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Contributory Provident Fund Regulations. Regulation 3 provides for the establishment of a fund known as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Contributory Provident Fund, with effect from 1-7-57. Regulations 3-A to 3-K provide for the management and administration of the fund by the Board of Trustees. Regulation 4 prescribes that the Fund shall be governed by the regulations as may be in force for the time being but provides that no addition, alteration or repeal, of any regulation which may adversely affect a subscriber shall be retrospective. Regulation 5 provides that all employees who are eligible for the Contributory Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Scheme and Gratuity Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu except certain categories of employees with whom we are not concerned shall become subscribers to the fund on completion of three months continuous service. Regulation 6 prescribes that an account shall be opened in the name of each member in which shall be credited, the members subscriptions and interest thereon, the contributions made by the Electricity Board to his account and interest thereon and the pre-existing accounts before the Electricity Department was taken over by the Electricity Board. Regulation 9 provides for subscription to the fund by members at the rate of 71/2% of pay plus dearness allowance. Regulation 11 provides for contribution by the Electricity Board to the account of each member at the rate of 71/2% of pay plus dearness allowance. The members subscription along With the Electricity Boards Contribution is required to be credited to the individual account of the member before the 15th of every month. Regulation 37 prescribes that the Electricity Board shall credit to a members Provident Fund account a special contribution calculated in the specified manner, in addition to the contribution credited under Regulation 11, if the Board is satisfied that the service of the member has been good, efficient and faithful and the member has not been dismissed from service or the member has not been removed from service in which case the sanction of the Board has to be obtained. In the case of a Class I or Class II employee who quits service on attainment of the age of superannuation, he is to be credited, if his service exceeds 18 years with six months pay plus half a months pay for each completed year of service after the 18th but not so as to exceed, in all, twelve months pay or rupees twenty-five thousand, whichever is less. If the employees service does not exceed 18 years, he is to be credited with half a months pay for each com












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