Judgment :-

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the widow of an employee is entitled to get family pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short ‘Scheme’), on the failure of the employer to exercise his option under the scheme, especially when the claimant has already received the entire Provident Fund amount, from the Fund maintained by the Corporation.

3. Respondent Union raised a claim on behalf of the widow of late Hari Singh for family pension under the Scheme before the State Government. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour and Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) for adjudication of the claim. The Tribunal, after examining the Scheme, took the view that the employee was not informed of his right to exercise the option under the Scheme, consequently, allowed the application and gave a direction to the appellant-Corporation to disburse family pension to the widow of Hari Singh, who was working as a Driver in the service of the Corporation.

4. The appellant-Corporation took up the matter before the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2099 of 1999, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, later, confirmed by the Division Bench as well vide its judgment dated 29.6.2011 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 960 of 2011. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-Corporation has come up with this appeal.

5. Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal as well as the Courts below have misunderstood the provisions of the Scheme and omitted to take note of all relevant and material facts for adjudication of the claim raised for family pension. Learned counsel submitted that there was a complete misreading of the facts which led to incorrect reasoning resulting into rendering a wrong judgment on facts as well as on law.

6. Shri B. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union, submitted that this Court shall not interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by all the authorities below and that no question of law has been raised for determination by this Court.

7. In order to examine the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to understand the facts of the case so that this Court can examine whether the Tribunal as well as the Courts below have rendered a perverse finding, which a reasonable person would not have arrived at under the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

8. The employee Hira Singh was appointed as a Driver in the service of the appellant-Corporation on 22.3.1962, and later, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. In the year 1971, the Central Government introduced a scheme relating to family pension by making suitable amendments in the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (for short ‘P.F. Act’). Employees desirous of availing of the benefit of the Scheme had to exercise their option under the Scheme and the last date for submission of the application for the said purpose was 1.9.1971. According to the appellant-Corporation, Hari Singh did not exercise that option under the Scheme and, while in service, he died on 30.5.1982. Contributory Provident Fund, as per the rules, was disbursed to the widow of the employee and the same was received as well. No claim for family pension was raised since the employee had not opted for the benefit of the Scheme.

9. Respondent Union, however, took up the claim of the widow after nine years by filing a petition before the State Government which, we have already indicated, was referred to the Tribunal and was decided in favour of the respondent Union.

10. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether Hari Singh had opted for the benefit of the Scheme which came into force in the year 1971 and whether there was failure on the part of appe