JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner laying a challenge to order dated 03.09.2011 passed by Labour Court in LCA No.02/09.

2. Respondent No.1 herein was an employee of erstwhile DESU/DVB and was working as Assistant Lineman. DVB was unbundled w.e.f. 01.07.2002 and five different companies were formed. Respondent No.1 became an employee of the Petitioner herein i.e. BSES YPL. DVB Employee Terminal Benefit Fund, 2002 (Pension Trust) was formed for the purpose of disbursement of pension to erstwhile employees of DVB as also for employees who joined the newly formed companies and retired thereafter on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise.

3. Respondent No.1 sought voluntary retirement from services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31.08.2003, which was accepted and he was informed that he would stand retired from the said date. A relevant fact needs a mention at this stage that Respondent No.1's wife Smt. Shyama Diwedi filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 555/2003 in this Court wherein an interim order was passed on 22.01.2003, restraining the Petitioner herein from releasing the retiral benefits of Respondent No.1. On this count, Petitioner informed Respondent No.1 that his retiral benefits shall be released only after adjudication of the writ petition. Wife of Respondent No.1 filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.11.2004 with a further direction by the Court that the interim order will continue to inure to the benefit of the wife for a period of four weeks to move an appropriate application for maintenance.

4. On 02.12.2004, learned MM in MP. 582/03 awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the wife and son of Respondent No.1 and also restrained the Petitioner from releasing further payment to Respondent No.1 till disposal of the petition. In the execution proceedings, Petitioner was directed not to release the pension, gratuity and leave encashment to Respondent No.1 till the next date of hearing i.e. 09.12.2005 and on the said date, a further direction was passed not to release the GPF. Petitioner intimated to Respondent No.1 that his benefits cannot be released on account of the interim orders as also that the liability to pay the terminal benefits was on Respondent No.2/Pension Trust.

5. Respondent No.1 thereafter filed an application on 30.01.2009 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court seeking release of his gratuity and monthly pension @ Rs.4,500/- per month for the Petitioners period 01.09.2003 to 31.12.2008 along with interest. On 03.09.2011, the Labour Court passed the impugned order directing payment of retiral benefits to Respondent No.1, subject to compliance of order of the learned MM dated 09.12.2005 to the effect that whatever outstanding maintenance had not been paid by Respondent No.1 to his wife and child, the same shall be deposited in the Court of learned MM and after apprising the Court, arrangements shall be made for future payment of the maintenance amount. In case of default, Petitioner was held liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on unpaid amount till the date of payment.

6. Petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the order of the Labour Court essentially on the ground that liability to pay retiral and terminal benefits to Respondent No.1 rested on Respondent No.2 and not the Petitioner, amongst various other grounds. When the writ petition was listed on 13.02.2012, Court stayed the operation of the order of the Labour Court, subject to the Petitioner depositing with the Registrar General of this Court, within a period of four weeks by means of a pay order/demand draft, the amount directed to be paid to Respondent No.1 by the Labour Court and the money was to be invested in a Fixed Deposit, initially for a period of six months, renewable every six months.