IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.A.No.18 of 2024 V.Govindarajulu ..Appellant Vs.

1. The Secretary, State Transport Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ..Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21564 of 2023 dated

21.07.2023.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravi, Special Govt.Pleader for R1 Mr.C.Gouthamaraj, Standing Counsel for R2.

J U D G M E N T

(The judgment of the Court was delivered by J.Nisha Banu,J.)

This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed in W.P.No.21564 of 2023 dated 21.07.2023, by which, the learned Judge has dismissed the writ petition which was filed challenging the order passed/ by the Labour Court in the claim petition in C.P.No.43 of 2018. The said claim petition was filed claiming arrears of pension from 01.01.1985 to 30.11.2017 along with interest. The Labour Court has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant herein .

2. The case of the appellant is that he joined the erstwhile State Transport Department on 05.08.1971 and was absorbed permanently on 30.04.1975 in Pallavan Transport Corporation. He retired from service on 30.06.2002. For treating the services rendered in the Transport Department as pensionable service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1444 & 1445 of 1999 fixed the cut off date as 01.04.1982. Since the pension is denied to the appellant, he filed C.P.No.43 of 2018 before the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Labour Court dismissed the said claim petition. The writ petition filed, challenging the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court , by order in C.A.No.1444 & 1445 of 1999 has fixed the cut off date as 01.04.1982, at that time, the appellant was in service in the erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and thus, the service rendered by him is a pensionable service. Learned counsel would state that the learned Judge has given the findings that the cut off date was fixed as 01.04.1982 for the service rendered in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and the appellant is not entitled to pensionable service as his date of joining as fresh entrant was after the cut off date i.e., 31.01.1985 and that the claim petition was filed in the year 2018, after a lapse of nearly two decades and dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel would state that when the cut off date was fixed, the appellant was in service in the erstwhile Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation i.e., on 01.04.1982 and that the question of laches does not arise in petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as there is no limitation prescribed for filing petition under the said section.

Hence, he would pray to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would state that the appellant worked with the 1st respondent only for four years and then opted for OSSR system and obtained a sum of Rs.345/- towards gratuity. The appellant was appointed under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act as a new entrant in the Corporation service from 01.05.1985. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an employee who has worked for a continuous period of 10 years are eligible to claim pension. The petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile State Transport Department on 08.05.1971. He was absorbed permanently in Pallavan Transport Corporation on 30.04.1975. At that time, the Government had given option to avail either to adopt OSSR System or pension system and the appellant gave his consent for OSSR system. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim pension.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Special Government Pleader appea