S. Anbalagan v. The Senior Deputy Manager

JUDGMENT Page 1/11 (Judgment of the Court was delivered by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.) Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8311 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.

¶2The appellant has filed the above writ petition to quash the letter dated 08.08.2023 issued by the first respondent, denying his prayer to revise the pension benefits and to settle leave salary, festival holiday salary, Bonus and Ex-gratia for the non employment period from

04.12.1991 to 11.04.2013 and consequently, direct the respondents concerned to pay the above benefits.

¶3The Writ court, by considering the facts that the petitioner was dismissed from service from 04.12.1991 to 11.04.2013; and only after the award passed by the lok adalat, he was reinstated into service, that too without any backwages; and he was reinstated into service with continuity of service alone, has dismissed the writ petition, since those benefits will be given to the employees, who are in service. Dissatisfied with the above order, the writ petitioner is before this court. Page 2/11

¶4Heard the counsel for the appellant and we have gone through the materials on record.

¶5Admittedly, the appellant was dismissed from service on

04.12.1991 for his misconduct and as per the Award passed in Industrial Dispute No.633/1996 by the Labour Court, Chennai dated 05.09.2002, the respondent management was directed to reinstate the appellant into service with 50% backwages with continuity of service. In the first round of litigation:

ii) As against the award passed by the Labour Court dated

05.09.2002, the management filed W.P.No.22280/2003; and the appellant has also filed W.P.No.49749 of 2006, challenging the denial of remaining 50% backwages.

iii) By order dated 26.11.2010, W.P.No.22280/2023 filed by the management was allowed and W.P.No.49749/2006 filed by the appellant was dismissed.

iv) As against the dismissal of W.P.No.49749 of 2006, the appellant preferred an appeal in W.A.No.374 of 2011. Pending appeal, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat, wherein, the appellant agreed to Page 3/11 forego 50% of backwages, as granted by the Labour court and to that extent, the Award was modified by the Lok Adalat by order dated

05.12.2012 and granted the continuity of service and other attendant benefits were confirmed.

¶6According to the appellant, as per the order of the Lok Adalat dated 05.12.2012, he was granted continuity of service and other attendant benefits and hence, he sent representations to the management to revise his pension taking note of the review benefits, however, it was denied by the management. Accordingly, in the second round of litigation:

i) the appellant filed W.P.No.22166 of 2015 seeking direction to the respondent management to pay pension to the appellant after taking note of the service benefits in the Award dated 05.09.2022 passed in I.D.No.633 of 1996. By order dated 03.03.2016, this court has directed the respondent corporation to compute the appellant's total length of service from 23.06.1982 onwards and calculate his pension, after ascertaining the amount in accordance with the relevant rules and after deducting the petitioner's contribution, and pay the same to him. Page 4/11

ii) The above said order dated 03.03.2016 made in W.P.No.22166 of 2015 was challenged by the Management in W.A.No.1145 of 2016. The said appeal was disposed of on 18.09.2017 with some clarification and it is reproduced as follows.

¶3On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent (appellant herein), relying upon the Joint Memorandum of settlement entered into before the Lok Adalat on 7.4.2017 in W.P.Nos.25405 of 2016 and 14524 of 2014 between the same appellant-Management and one Mr.K.Balaraman, submitted that in a similar case, when the management had agreed to pay pension to the concerned workman by making the employer's provident fund contribution, in lieu of entire back-wages for the non employment period, they cannot deny the same benefit to the respondent, after deducting the contribution to be made by him, for the purpose of pension.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we hereby clarify that it is for the appellant-Management to calculate the pension payable to the respondent/writ petitioner (appellant herein) by taking into account the employee's Provident Fund contribution, covering the length of service, which amount shall carry interest, as per the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Scheme; and on quantification of the entire arrears of pension, the amount of contribution to be made by the respondent/writ petitioner (appellant herein) shall be deducted/adjusted and the balance amount thereof shall be paid to him, so that there may be regular payment of monthly pension in favour of him. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period Page 5/11 of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶7It is to be noted that, the said order passed in W.A.No. 1145/2016, dated 18.09.2017 was not challenged by the appellant, whereas, he filed contempt petition No.970/2018 to sanction pension, as per the order passed in W.A.No.1145 of 2016. According to the appellant, pending contempt petition, the respondent had sanctioned pension in May 2018 and hence the contempt petition was closed.

¶8It is the case of the appellant that, though pension was sanctioned, he was not granted reveiw benefits as per Section 12(3) settlement and hence he filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.144/2020 to revise his pension, as per settlement in vogue and also to pay leave salary, holiday salary, bonus and Ex-gratia for non employment period from 4.12.1991 to 11.04.2013. In the said W.P.No.144/2020, by order dated 19.01.2023, this court has directed the management to consider the representation of the appellant in accordance with the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act Settlement dated 31.01.2011 and to pass orders. Page 6/11

¶9It is also the case of the appellant that since the management has not granted the review benefits, as per the settlement in vogue, he is getting lessor pension than his junior; hence he gave a representation to the management and it was rejected by the respondent, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2023. Challenging the said order, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.8311 of 2024 and following its dismissal order, he filed the present writ appeal.

¶10The respondent management, while passing the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 has discussed about the granting of review benefits in detail and has given reasons for not granting the said benefits to the appellant and the same is extracted here under.

ePjpg;nguhiz vz;/144-2020d; cj;jut[g;go j';fspd; 28/02/2023 ehspl;l kD ed;F ghprPypf;fg;gl;L fPH;f;fz;l tptu';fs; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ jh';fs; gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;l 04/12/1991 Kjy; 11/04/2013 tiua[s;s ntiy ePf;f fhyj;jpw;Fz;lhd but;a{ (Review) gyd;fis fzf;fPL bra;J mjd; mog;gilapy; j';fspd; mog;gil rk;gsj;ij khw;wp mikj;J mjw;Fz;lhd epYitj; bjhifiaa[k; mspf;FkhW nfhhpa[s;sPh;/ Page 7/11 Mdhy;. Ma;t[ gyd; (Review) vd;gJ gzpahsh; tUifg; gjpt[. gzpj;jpwd;. xG';F eltof;if epYitapy; yhjpUj;jhy; kw;Wk; gzpahshpd; ed;dlj;ij nghd;wtw;iw Muha;e;J Ma;t[ gyd;

fkpl;oapd;

ghpe;Jiuapd;

nghpy;

tH';fg;gLtJ eilKiwapy; cs;sJ/ Mdhy; jh';fs; 04/12/1991 Kjy; 11/04/2013 tiu ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; epue;ju gzpePf;fk; bra;ag;gl;L gzpg[hpahj ehl;fshf ,Ug;gjpdhy; Ma;t[ gyd; (Review) tH';f tHptif ,y;iy vd;Wk; nkYk; nkw;Twpa gzpePf;f ehl;fSf;F cz;lhd <Lbra;a[k; tpLg;g[ (E.L.). gz;oif tpLg;g[ (FH). nghd!; (Bonus). fUizj; bjhif. bgh';fy; nghd!; ngl;lh nghd;witfs; midj;Jk; xU gzpahshpd; tUifg; gjpit gzpg[hpe;jikia mog;gilahff; bfhz;L murpd; tHpfhl;Ljy;go tH';fg;gLtjhFk;/ vdnt. 04/12/1991 Kjy; 11/04/2013 tiu jh';fs; gzpapy; gzpg[hpahj fhykhdjhy; j';fSf;F nkw;Twpaitfis tH';f tHptif ,y;iy vd;gJ bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ nkw;Twpaitfspd; mog;gilapy; khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w ePjpg;nguhiz vz;/144-2020d; cj;jut[ epiw ntw;wg;gl;lJ vd;gJ bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/

¶11It is to be noted that, in the earlier W.A.No.1145 of 2016, it was specifically clarified that, the management has to calculation the pension payable to the appellant by taking into account the employer's provident fund contribution, covering the length of service and on Page 8/11 quantification of the entire arrears of pension, the contribution amount to be made by the appellant shall be deducted. In fact, the appellant has not filed any appeal as against this order, but filed contempt petition to grant pension as per the said order passed in the writ appeal. Further, in the said appeal the appellant has not sought any liberty to file writ petition in future, if necessary. Hence, the above said order passed in W.A.No.1145 of 2016 has become final. However, subsequently, the appellant has sought review benefits, as per the settlement in vogue and filed W.P.No.144/2020, wherein, this court, by order dated 19.01.2023, has directed the management to consider the representation of appellant. The respondent management, after considering all the aspects and also as per the direction of this court in W.P.No.144/2020, has passed the reasoning order, dated 08.08.2023, rejecting the claim made by the appellant. Since there is no error in the said impugned order, the writ court has rightly dismissed the writ petition by observing that the review benefits such as earned leave, bonus, exgratia and pongal bonus will be given to the employees, who are in service alone. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Page 9/11

¶12Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (D.K.K, J.) (P.B.B., J.)

04.11.2024 mst Page 10/11

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and

P.B.BALAJI, J. mst

04.11.2024 Page 11/11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI S.Anbalagan ... Appellant Vs. 1. The Senior Deputy Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Anna Salai, Pallavan Illam, Chennai 600 002. 2. The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Emplyees Pension Fund, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order of this Court dated 26.03.2024 made in W.P.No.8311 of 2024. For Appellant : Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu