Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 969
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Tmt. Swarnammal & Others
Versus
The Management, Food Corporation of India & Others
Writ Petition Nos.26488 and 31404 of 2007
Decided On : 23-02-2012
For the Petitioners:R. Lawrence, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Imthias, Advocate, K. Gunasekar, ACGSC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable for claiming pension, as the claim should be directed against the Provident Fund Department, not the employer.
Headnote:
PENSION - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Employees Provident Fund Act - Employees' Pension Scheme - Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act - Employees Provident Fund Scheme - Employees' Pension Scheme - Consumer Protection Act - The Central Bank of India Ltd. V. P.S.Rajagopalan etc. - AIR 1964 SC 743
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought pension from the Food Corporation of India for being legal heirs of the workmen. The Labour Court dismissed the claim petitions stating that the petition under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is inappropriate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' claim for pension under the Employees Provident Fund cum pension scheme should be directed against the Provident Fund Department, not the employer. The court also cited a judgment stating that the question of maintainability of Section 33C(2) will arise only in specific cases.
Issues: The main issue was whether a petition under Section 33 C (2) is maintainable when there is a dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition under Section 33 C (2) is not maintainable as the claim for pension should be directed against the Provident Fund Department, not the employer. The court also emphasized that the question of maintainability of Section 33C(2) will arise only in specific cases.
Final Decision: Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the court.
Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Lawrence, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and Mr.M.Imthias, learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India and Mr.K.Gunasekar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Provident Fund Commissioner.
2. Both the Writ Petitions arise out of the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chennai in C.C.P.Nos.2 of 2001 and 3 of 2001. By the impugned order dated 14.3.2007, the CGIT - cum -Labour Court dismissed the claim petitions filed by the petitioners seeking for pension from the Food Corporation of India, (FCI). The Labour Court held that the petition under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is inappropriate and the Court cannot go into the contested claim of the petitioners in the absence of any legal or enforceable right.
3. Writ Petition No.26488 of 2007 was admitted on 20.10.2010. Writ Petition Petition No.31404 of 2007 was admitted on 14.9.2011. On notice from this Court, the Food Corporation of India has filed a counter affidavit dated 18.10.2010. On behalf of the second respondent, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has filed a counter affidavit dated 20.02.2012.
4. The claim of the petitioners before the Labour Court was that they are the legal heirs of the workmen of the Food Corporation of India and entitled to get pension for the services rendered by them.
5. On notice sent by the CGIT - cum -Labour Court, Food Corporation of India filed a counter stating that the family pension, which are available only when a worker died in harness as per the Family Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Fund Act. Hence, the worker is not eligible for pension. Even in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, in the case of one Kasi, whose legal heirs have filed a claim petition in C.C.P.No.3 of 2001, similar stand was taken. It is stated that terminal benefits were paid to the worker at the time of retirement and the worker died on 4.9.1980, three years after voluntary retirement. Therefore the question of his getting family pension will not arise.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Provident Fund Department, in paragraph No.10, it was stated as follows:
"10.It is submitted that if the fact so as observed by the Hon'ble Central Government Labour Court as per the Provisions of the erstwhile Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the Family members of the deceased subscriber are only eligible for Family Pension if the subscriber dies while on duty/service and contributing to the family pension Fund. As such in this case the member Shri.Kali left service on 30.08.1986 and subsequently died on 04.09.1990 and the petitioners are not eligible to receive Family Pension under erstwhile Employees' Family Pension Scheme 1971. On this score alone the petition has become infructuous and liable to be dismsised in limini"
7. Therefore, the only question that has to be decided is when there is a serious dispute regarding the entitlement of the petitioners, whether a petition under Section 33 C (2) is maintainable. A petition under Section 33 C (2) is available for a worker or his legal heirs to claim any monetary dues from the employer.
8. In the present case, there is no monetary dues claim from the employer. On the other hand, pension is claimed under the Employees Provident Fund cum pension scheme. Therefore, if there is any remedy, it is only against the Department controlling the Provident Fund. The Provident Fund Act itself provides for remedies for such dispute and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner can always decide the question of removing all doubts in terms of para 26(b) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme on the question of entitlement to become a member of the scheme in respect of Provident Fund. Similarly in respect of pension, under Rule 8 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, it is stated that if any doubt arise,
