Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, R. Banumathi, JJ.
S.SESHACHALAM & ORS. ETC. – Appellants
Versus
CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9068-73/2010)
WITH
THE ELDER LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11460 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.34326/2012)
Decided On : 16-12-2014
(b) Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 – Section 16, Explanation II (5), proviso – Retired employee-advocate – Denied benefit of lump sum payment under Proviso – Even then they shall be entitled to Welfare Fund at the rate specified in the schedule – Differentiation of retired employee-advocates in receipt of pension or other terminal benefits, and the advocates setting up practice straight from the law college – Held, rational and reasonable. (Para 18)
Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Mere hardship caused to a group should not be a ground to strike down a law. (Para 20)
© Constitution of India – Article 14 – Forbids class legislation – Does not forbid reasonable classification – Such classification must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive – Must bear just and reasonable nexus with object sought to be achieved. (Para 22)
(1979) 1 SCC 380; (2011) 3 SCC 238; (1975) 1 SCC 305; (1985) Supp. SCC 45; (1996) 10 SCC 536; (2004) 2 SCC 76 – Relied upon
(d) Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 – Section 16, Explanation II (5), proviso r/w Article 14, Constitution of India – Retired employees-advocates secured with retirement benefits from beginning of their law practice – Better placed than young fresh advocates having no secured and adequate income – The two cannot be equated – Payment of lump sum welfare fund would amount to double benefit to retired employee-advocates – Classifying the retired employee-advocates and advocates devoting their whole life to the profession into two classes – Reasonable and having nexus with objects of the Act. (Para 27, 28)
(e) Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 – Section 16, Explanation II (5), proviso r/w section 3 (2) (d) – Grant made by Government – A major source of welfare fund – Retired employee-advocates also getting retuirement benefits from Government – Allowing them to get another retiral benefit from Welfare Fund – Would amount to double benefit – Not permissible – Retired employee-advocates rightly excluded from the benefit of the lump sum amount of welfare fund. (Para 29)
(f) Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 2001 – Section 28 – Senior advocate or a person in receipt of pension from the Central Government or State Government – Not entitled to ex-gratia grant under Sections 19, 21 and 24 – Thus retired employee-advocates not entitled to benefits of Advocate Welfare Fund. (Para 30)
(g) Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 – Section 1(3) – Retired employee-advocates excluded from purview of the Act – No infirmity. (Para 32)
2011(2)PLJR 401 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 and Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.
The appellants are retired employees either from government service or other organisations qualified with law degree who have enrolled themselves as advocates after retiring from their respective services and now are said to be practising in courts. Challenging the impugned provision and Explanation II (5) of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, the appellants filed writ petitions contending that the benefit of Welfare Fund Act is denied to the kin of advocates who are in receipt of pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State or Central Government or organization is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by the retired officials-advocates.
The Division Bench allowed the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The Central Act as well as the State Act does make a distinction amongst the advocates on the premise that a group of advocates receive certain financial assistance from the State Government or the Central Government or some other employer in the form of terminal benefits and pension etc.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.
3. Similar challenge is made to Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 which excludes the persons who have retired from service and are in receipt of retiral benefits from their employers from the purview of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act. For convenience, appeals challenging the provisions of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act are taken as lead case.
4. The appellants are retired employees either from government service or other organisations qualified with law degree who have enrolled themselves as advocates after retiring from their respective services and now are said to be practising in courts. Challenging the impugned provision and Explanation II (5) of Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, the appellants filed writ petitions contending that the benefit of Welfare Fund Act is denied to the kin of advocates who are in receipt of pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits from any State or Central Government or organization is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed the batch of writ petitions filed by the retired officials who had enrolled themselves as advocates after their retirement. Learned single Judge struck down impugned proviso to Explanation II (5) of Section 16 holding that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Government preferred appeals before the Division Bench which allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. The Division Bench held ".....that the distinction made between the member advocates who enrolled and professed law profession from the beginning, and the advocates who joined law profession after retirement, viz., after completion of nearly 58 years of their life, for the purpose of conferring lump sum benefit...." is a reasonable classification and the said classification has a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved and it cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Challenging the same, the appellants have preferred these appeals by way of special leave.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Harish Beeran contended that the denial of lump sum benefit based on a classification of advocates is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the differentiation between persons who enrolled as advocates after demitting office from the govt. service/organization and who enrolled as advocates and set up practice straight from the law college, is discriminatory as there is no such distinction made in the Act while defining the term 'advocate' under Section 2(a) of the Act. It was further submitted that the pension and other benefits received are the statutory amounts paid to them for the services rendered to the previous employer and it is an earned benefit, and that cannot form the basis for denial of lump sum benefits. The appellants argued that the impugned proviso is repugnant and contradictory to Section 2(i) of the Act, which defines the term 'member of Fund' and is liable to be struck down as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Pramod Swarup learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.34326/2012) submitted that as per Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fu
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
