The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of previous court decisions, particularly when confirmed by the Supreme Court, and their influence on similar cases.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. The appellant workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 28.09.2018 allowed the Reference (IT) No. 403 of 2012, holding that the workman was entitled to be under the pension scheme after retirement. It was directed that the workman would be treated to be at member of General Provident Scheme instead of Employees Provident Fund and shall be treated in the prevalent pension scheme.

2. Learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 05.05.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 19056 of 2019, filed by the respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, set aside the judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal.

3. Noticing the basic facts from the record, the appellant was daily wager conductor serving in Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service since 01.09.1976 and was made permanent with effect from 11.11.1981. He was in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

3.1 Circular No. 102 of 31.03.1987 came o be issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service whereby the policy was adopted to introduce the pension scheme for its employees.

3.2 The appellant was member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. He had applied for voluntary retirement on 05.11.2012, which was granted with effect from 01.03.2013. The petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking benefit of pension scheme in light of the said Circular No. 102 dated 31.03.1987 and other attendant Circulars on the subject.

3.3 Before the Tribunal, Circular No. 102 dated 31.03.1987 was on record at Exhibit 13. Also was in consideration before the Industrial Tribunal the subsequent Circular dated 03.11.1987 at Exhibit 19. Circular dated 31.03.1987 also figures on record of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3.4 In paragraph 8 of judgment and award, while discussing the claim and entitlement of the workman, the Industrial Tribunal extensively referred to the stipulations in the said Circular No. 102. The Circular inter-alia mentioned that the pension scheme was brought in respect of those employees to whom the family pension scheme was not applicable. The Circular offered and option to the employees to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund or to opt for pension scheme.

3.5 An Ekrarnama was required to be submitted by the employees to the employer. Such Ekrarnama, as provided in Circular No. 102 goes, was to be given by the employees who wanted to continue in Contributory Provident Fund. It was expressly contemplated that all other employees who did not submit such ekrarnama opting for Contributory Provident Fund would be treated to be considered to have exercised the option for remaining under the pension scheme. The option of such kind was to be exercised before particular date.

3.6 Thus, what was instructed to the employees by virtue of the said Circular was that if the employee concerned wanted to be under the Contributory Provident Fund, then such employee would be required to submit an Ekrarnama. In the alternative, the employee was to be automatically treated to be covered in the pension scheme.

3.7 Another Circular appears to have been issued by the respondent herein, which was dated 03.11.1987. The Tribunal considered the same to observe that it did not alter the instructions given in Circular No. 102, but it was of reiterative nature. Finally, the Tribunal allowed the reference of the workman.

4. While setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal, learned Single Judge relied on the order of the Division Bench in Karl Marx General Labour Union vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1245 of 2014 decided as per the judgment dated 15.06.2015. The view taken by the Division Bench was that since the employee had not opted for General Provident Fund Scheme, they could not be given the benefit of the scheme.

5. As could be immediately noticed, when learned advocate Mr. P.J.Brahmbhatt relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M