Important Point:a) Mere nomenclature should not have been and could not have been used as ground for ignoring or rejecting the case of claimants for pension.b) Method/mode of payment of salary would not be and cannot be sole determinative factor or solitary yardstick to ascertain and determine as to whether the appointment is regular or not and/or whether the appointment is on regular establishment or not and that for the said purpose other factors viz. the status or category of an employee and the manner/method of selection and appointment, nature of duties/work they perform and the post on which they were/have been appointed, would be relevant and cumulative effect of such factor and criteria should decide the status or category of employee.

K.M. Thaker, J.

1. In this group of 9 petitions, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Services (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner AMTS') has challenged the award dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 140 of 2011 whereby the learned Tribunal held that the claimants who accepted Voluntary Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'VRS') are entitled and eligible for pension. Having reached to such conclusion, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner AMTS to pay pension by taking into account entire period of their service with the corporation. The petitioner AMTS is aggrieved by the said direction. Hence this group of petitions.

2. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged that:-

2.1 The respondents (claimants) herein were selected and engaged as drivers, conductors and workshop (bodysmith) and they continuously worked as such till the date when they tendered applications for voluntary retirement in response to the Scheme (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) introduced by the petitioner AMTS whereby the petitioner AMTS invited applications for voluntary retirement and offered certain benefits in terms of said scheme. The details related to their service history are compiled (from the facts stated by claimants and the petitioner AMTS) in following statement:-

Table

2.2 In 1984 the petitioner AMTS introduced pension scheme for its employees. The pension scheme was brought in force w.e.f. 1.1.1983. On the relevant date, i.e. on 1.1.1983 also the claimants were in service with the petitioner AMTS. Undisputedly, during the tenure of their service with the petitioner AMTS the petitioners were members of said pension scheme.

2.3 Subsequently, vide Circular No. 18 dated 16.12.2003 the petitioner AMTS introduced VRS whereby the petitioner AMTS invited applications for voluntary retirement. The last date for submission of application was 31.12.2003. The terms and conditions applicable to the said VRS were prescribed by virtue of Annexure-A to the Circular No. 18 of 16.12.2003.

2.4 The claimants opted for voluntary retirement and they availed the VRS in accordance with its terms and conditions the petitioner AMTS accepted the applications by the claimants. Thereafter the petitioner AMTS paid certain amounts to the claimants which, according to the petitioner AMTS were payable under the VRS.

2.5 After the petitioner AMTS paid the amounts to the claimants (which according to it were payable in accordance with the terms of the VRS), the claimants realized that they are not considered eligible for pension. Therefore, they demanded monthly pension on the ground that in view of the terms of VRS, they are eligible and entitled for pension.

2.6 the petitioner AMTS did not accept the said demand and therefore the industrial dispute arose between the parties.

2.7 Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Tribunal where the dispute/reference was registered as Reference (IT) No. 140 of 2011.

2.8 In their statement of claim the claimants narrated that they had completed 20 years of service with the petitioner AMTS at the time when the petitioner AMTS offered VRS/they accepted VRS. They also claimed that though their service qualified for pension, the petitioner AMTS arbitrarily considered them ineligible for pension and that the said decision is unjustified and the petitioner AMTS should be directed to cancel its decision and to pay pension in accordance with the terms of VRS.

2.9 The petitioner AMTS opposed the demand for pension by the claimants on the strength of provision under Rule 25 of GCS (Pension) Rules.

2.10 Learned Tribunal considered rival contentions and the provision on which the petitioner AMTS placed reliance i.e. regulation 25 of GCSR Pension Rules. After taking into account said provision and rival contentions learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the regulation 25 does not render the claimants