Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN
General Manager, Eid Parry (India) Limited, Ranipet - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others - Respondents
W.A. No. 332/1994
Decided On : 25 June 1994
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33-C(2) - RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE - ANNUAL REVIEW - VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEMES - EARLY RETIREMENT SCHEMES - PENSION SCHEME - CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - MAINTAINABILITY OF SINGLE WRIT PETITION - INTEREST ON RETIRING ALLOWANCE - INTERPRETATION OF G.O.O. NO. 26 - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RETIRING ALLOWANCE - DISCRETION OF BOARD OF MANAGEMENT - ANNUAL REVIEW OF RETIRING ALLOWANCE - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - POWER OF BOARD TO ALTER SCALES OF RETIRING ALLOWANCES - PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN 1956 - PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AWARD - RESTORATION OF PENSION SCHEME - FINAL ORDER OF SUPREME COURT - EFFECT - CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES - ENTITLEMENT TO RETIRING ALLOWANCE - ANNUAL REVIEW OF RETIRING ALLOWANCE - INTEREST ON RETIRING ALLOWANCE - MAINTAINABILITY OF APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 33-C(2) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company introduced a Retirement Benefit Scheme for non-covenanted employees working in its specified units by General Office Order No. 26, which came into force on December 1, 1943. While the first part of the Office Order related to retirement allowance, the second part provided for gratuity to those who were in the service of the company prior to 1947 and who did not qualify for pension. There was a settlement of disputes between the management and workers in 1956 which contained provisions for gratuity and retiring allowances. The Payment of Gratuity Act came into force on September 16, 1972. The appellant took the stand that thereafter the employees were not entitled to retirement allowances under G.O.O. No. 26. The appellant had introduced Voluntary Retirement Schemes and Early Retirement Schemes in 1975, 1980 and 1983. Some of the employees opted to retire under those schemes and receive the benefits whereupon their accounts were fully settled.
Finding of the Court:
1. A single writ petition is maintainable in the present case against the common order of the Labour Court. 2. The principle of constructive res judicata will not apply in this case, and the Management is not precluded from challenging the claims of persons who are not entitled to retiring allowance as per the terms of G.O.O. No. 26. 3. Persons who had served for 20 years and above but below 30 years at the time of retirement are not entitled to retiring allowance as a matter of right. It is for the Board to decide whether persons who had served for more than 20 years but less than 30 years would be entitled to retiring allowance and if they decide to grant the same, they shall do so on pro rata basis. 4. Persons who retired voluntarily of their own free will and accord under the Voluntary Retirement Schemes or Early Retirement Schemes are not entitled to get the benefits under G.O.O. No. 26. 5. The respondents are not entitled as of right to claim annual review of the retiring allowance. It is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Board. 6. The appellant is not liable to pay interest on the retiring allowance, as it failed to pay the same even after the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Issues: 1. Whether a single writ petition at the instance of the Management is maintainable in this case ? 2. Whether the Management is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from disputing any of the claims by the employees ? 3. Whether persons who had served for 20 years and above but below 30 years at the time of retirement are entitled to retiring allowance ? 4. Whether the employees who had retired under Voluntary Retirement Schemes or Early Retirement Schemes are entitled to retiring allowance ? 5. Whether the employees are entitled to insist upon annual review of retiring allowance ? 6. Whether respondents 2 to 86 are entitled to claim interest on the amounts payable ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of constructive res judicata will not apply in this case, and the Management is not precluded from challenging the claims of persons who are not entitled to retiring allowance as per the terms of G.O.O. No. 26. 2. Persons who had served for 20 years and above but below 30 years at the time of retirement are not entitled to retiring allowance as a matter of right. It is for the Board to decide whether persons who had served for more than 20 years but less than 30 years would be entitled to retiring allowance and if they decide to grant the same, they shall do so on pro rata basis. 3. Persons who retired voluntarily of their own free will and accord under the Voluntary Retirement Schemes or Early Retirement Schemes are not entitled to get the benefits under G.O.O. No. 26. 4. The respondents are not entitled as of right to claim annual review of the retiring allowance. It is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Board. 5. The appellant is not liable to pay interest on the retiring allowance, as it failed to pay the same even after the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated January 20, 1994 in W.P. No. 12995 of 1993 is set aside. The order of the Labour Court in C.P. Nos. 18 to 31 of 1992 in so far as they are against the appellant and they direct the appellant to pay the amounts claimed by the respondents in the claim petitions is quashed. The parties will bear their respective costs in the writ petition as well as in the Writ Appeal.
This appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition filed by M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., Ranipet challenging the correctness of the common order passed by the Labour Court, Vellore in the claim petitions filed by respondents 2 to 86 herein under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The appellant company introduced a Retirement Benefit Scheme for the non-covenanted employees working in its specified units by General Office Order No. 26, which came into force on December 1, 1943 in the Ranipet Unit with which we are concerned. While the first part of the Office Order related to retirement allowance, the second part provided for gratuity to those who were in the service of the company prior to 1947 and who did not qualify for pension. There was a settlement of disputes between the management and workers in 1956 which contained provisions for gratuity and retiring allowances. The Payment of Gratuity Act came into force on September 16, 1972. The appellant took the stand that thereafter the employees were not entitled to retirement allowances under G.O.O. No. 26. The appellant had introduced Voluntary Retirement Schemes and Early Retirement Schemes in 1975, 1980 and 1983. Some of the employees opted to retire under those schemes and receive the benefits whereupon their accounts were fully settled.
3. Some of the retired workers filed claim petitions before the Labour Court, Madras in 1981 claiming pension under G.O.O. No. 26. The Appellant contested the petitions on the ground that the settlement of disputes in 1956 superseded G.O.O. No. 26 and in any event, after the passing of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the pension schemes ceased to be in force. The labour Court negatived their pleas and passed orders as prayed for by the workers. With regard to the quantum, the Labour Court said that as the management had not furnished details, it was accepting the figures furnished by the claimants. The Management filed six writ petitions in this Court to quash the order of the Labour Court.
4. In the meanwhile, the State Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras the following dispute for adjudication :-
"Whether the demand for restoration of pension to the staff employees is justified ?"*
. The same was registered as I.D. No. 60 of 1982. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the Management and answered the reference against the workers. The award of the Tribunal was challenged in a writ petition filed by the Union representing the employees. All the seven writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court who upheld the contentions of the Management and negatived the claims of the employees. Appeals were filed by the Union and the employees. By judgment dated November 21, 1988, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the same holding that neither the settlement of 1956 nor the Payment of Gratuity Act had the effect of abrogating the pension scheme introduced by G.O.O. No. 26. Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the orders of the Labour Court were restored. In the industrial dispute, the Bench passed an award restoring the pension scheme as it prevailed with the management prior to September 16, 1972, the date of coming into force of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
5. The Management obtained special leave in the Supreme Court of India and preferred appeals. By judgment dated May 2, 1991, the appeals were dismissed and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed. The Court said,
"We are satisfied that the Appellate Bench of the High Court was right in holding that the entitlement to pension had not been substituted by the settlement of 1956 and, therefore, the claim to pension subject to qualification being satisfied was available to be maintained notwithstanding the settlement of 1956."Inspired by the words" subject to qualification"*
in the above passage, the Management refused to recognise the claims of those who had not compl
AI
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
