Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
G. Duraikannu - Petitioner
Versus
The Management of Tamil Nadu, State Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vellore & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12356 of 2004
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Industrial Disputes Act – Section 11 – Service Laws – Continuity of service – Pension – Petitioner joined the services of erstwhile State Transport Department as a conductor – When the Pallvan Transport Corporation was formed, the petitioner was absorbed with continuity of service. – For certain alleged misconduct, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order The petitioner therefore, raised an Industrial Dispute and it ended in failure. – According to the petitioner, the Department did not refer the dispute for adjudication. – Therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to refer the said dispute for adjudication. – The said Writ Petition was allowed by this court. – Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.(D). referred the dispute to the Principal Labour Court, Madras, for adjudication. – The said dispute was taken as I.D. – Principal Labour Court, by award, directed the respondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without backwages holding that termination was not justified.
Findings of Court:
It is to be seen that as per the direction given by this court in W.P. filed by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed – As per the award of the Labour Court, even though backwages not granted, continuity of service has been granted. – For continued length of service, the petitioner is entitled for receiving pension. This court time and again held in various decisions that during the period of non employment, employer has to pay the contribution for the purpose of pension. – It has been held in various decisions that “once there is an award of reinstatement with continuity of service, the entire period of service will have to be taken into account for all purposes except for paying backwages. – It is duty cast upon the employer to remit amount in the PF account so as to enable the petitioner therein to get pension – Petitioner was working as conductor and he was absorbed with continuity of service in the Pallvan Transport Corporation. – For certain alleged misconduct, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order – Thereafter, Industrial Dispute has been raised and the Labour Court set aside the order of removal from service and reinstated the petitioner into service without backwages. – After the petitioner filed W.P. praying for direction to the 1st respondent to pay pension for his entire service and on the directions issued by this court by order the impugned order has been passed. It is the admitted fact that since the petitioner has been reinstated without backwages, during his period of non-employment, no Provident Fund amount has been deducted as such there was no deduction even from the side of Management for the said period and therefore, 23 years of service has been calculated for the purpose of pension.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Mandamus after calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.17/13754/PF.4/TNSTC/Pension/2001, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the petitioner monthly pension with Dearness allowance and health allowance for the petitioner entire service from 01.05.1975 to 31.05.2001, without deducting the pension that the petitioner receiving from the Government of Tamil Nadu for the service rendered in the State Transport Department, with effect from 01.06.2001 with all arrears and consequential benefits and interest at the rate of 18%, Award costs and render justice.)
1. The petitioner joined the services of erstwhile State Transport Department as a conductor on 11.10.1963. When the Pallvan Transport Corporation was formed, the petitioner was absorbed with continuity of service. For certain alleged misconduct, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 19.10.1981, The petitioner therefore, raised an Industrial Dispute and it ended in failure. According to the petitioner, the Department did not refer the dispute for adjudication. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to refer the said dispute for adjudication. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this court. Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.(D).No.5, dated 29.06.1990 referred the dispute to the Principal Labour Court, Madras, for adjudication. The said dispute was taken as I.D.No.628/90.
2. The Principal Labour Court, by award dated 26.07.1993, directed the respondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and other attendant benefits but without backwages holding that termination was not justified.
3. Accordingly the 1st respondent reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service in terms of the award by an order dated 28.03.1994. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined duty on 29.03.1994. The petitioner's basic pay was fixed in appropriate scale of pay by counting the period of non-employment as service. The petitioner was given promotion as Checking Inspector.
4. On the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service with effect from 31.05.2001. According to the petitioner, he was granted gratuity and also his P.F. contribution and his entire service from 19.10.1981 to 28.03.1994 has been calculated. Further, Pension Scheme for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees was introduced on 01.09.1998 and Rules was formulated in the year 2000. It is the contention of the petitioner that 1st respondent has not made contribution towards P.F., for the period of non-employment that too after receiving his contribution of P.F.Amount. The said action is contrary to the award passed by the Labour Court which becomes final. The petitioner requested to settle entire P.F.amount. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 05.03.2003 to the 1st respondent and requested them to settle P.F.Dues and also for refixation of pension and commutation. The petitioner sent another letter dated 01.09.2003 to the 1st respondent and requested to count the period of non-employment from 19.10.1981 to 28.03.1994 for pension and refix pension and commutation with effect from 31.05.2001 with arrears and consequential benefits. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30928/2003 praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to pay pension for his entire service. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 20.02.2004 and as per the direction of this court, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.02.2004 to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent passed the impugned order dated 24.03.2004 rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
5. The 1st respondent refused to fix pension for the entire service of petitioner on the ground that employer contribution of P.F., was not received for the period of non-employment as no backwages was ordered by the Lab
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
