The Managing Director v. G.Parthiban

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This review application has been filed against the order passed by the Division Bench dated 31.10.2019 in W.A.No.1507 of 2019.

¶2The writ appellant was the Managing Director of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, wherein, the first respondent in the writ appeal G.Parthiban joined service as a Conductor. Before this Corporation has come into effect, he joined into service on

28.12.1971 in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department, where, he worked till the year 1973 and from

01.08.1973, he had been absorbed in the Transport Corporation.

¶3In that capacity, after having worked for several years, that is for more than 20+ years, he voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31.01.1995. Since he had rendered eligible service for getting pension as per the Scheme which is available, he had approached the Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to quantify the amount payable to him by way of pensionary benefits, which was quantified at Rs.4,98,825/-. The said petition filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was allowed by the Labour Court.

¶4As against the order passed by the Labour Court, the Management preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.5543 of 2015. That writ petition also was dismissed by the Writ Court. Against which, an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.1507 of 2019 was filed by the employer/Management.

¶5While dealing with the said writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the actual service rendered by the respondent employee, who in fact had rendered service for more than 10 years, which is the minimum qualifying service. At one point of time, before the Division Bench, it was argued on behalf of the Management Transport Corporation that, he had rendered service of totally 10 years 3 months and 3 days, out of which, there has been a leave on loss of pay which was for 8 months and 9 days. After that period of leave on loss of pay is deducted from the total service, his qualifying service would come only to 9 years 6 months and 24 days. Therefore, he had not completed the 10 years qualifying service, hence, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits.

¶6This point has been meted out by the Division Bench in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the order, which is sought to be reviewed herein. The Division Bench, in fact, has taken the import of G.O.Ms.No.24, Finance (Pension) Department dated 13.01.1986, by which, the State Government has adopted the policy of the Central Government, where, if there has been a shortage of less than six months' period for reaching the qualifying service for getting pension, that could be rounded off to one year.

¶7Here, in the case in hand, even according to the employer, the total qualifying service, after deduction of leave on loss of pay, rendered by the employee would come to 9 years 6 months and 24 days. Therefore, for this shortage of less than six months of leave to the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, where, if the import of G.O.Ms.No.24 is applied, then the six months' period could be added or rounded off. Therefore, definitely, he could have reached the 10 years period, which has been dealt with by the Division Bench. Therefore, the said writ appeal was dismissed by the order dated 31.10.2019, by giving directions to calculate the arrears of pension payable to the employee and the same shall be paid within a period of eight weeks with interest at 9%.

¶8The said order, even though is sought to be reviewed in the present review application, after hearing Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review application, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order as no error apparently, on the face of record, is available of the order which is sought to be reviewed.

¶9Hence, this review application fails, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (P.V., J)

16.04.2025 drm To:

¶1The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. Pallavan Illam, Chennai – 600 002.

¶2The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶3The Presiding Officer I Additional Labour Court City civil Court Annexure Buildings High Court Compound Chennai – 600 104.

R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND P. VELMURUGAN

, J.

(drm) Rev.Appl.No.160 of 2023 in W.A.No.1507 of 2019

16.04.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.04.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN Rev.Appl.No.160 of 2023 against W.A.No.1507 of 2019 The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd. Pallavan Illam, Chennai – 600 002. .. Applicant Vs. 1. G.Parthiban 2. The Secretary to Government Transport Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3. The Presiding Officer I Additional Labour Court City civil Court Annexure Buildings High Court Compound Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XL VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 31.10.2019 made in W.A.No.1507 of 2019. For the Applicant : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Vinothraj For the Respondents : Mr.K.Malaikannu for R1