The Supreme Court in a civil appeal case has stated that no employee can be made to suffer for any fault of the corporation.
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal also noted that the Court will not deter in granting the relief to the respondent which is legitimately due to him.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as a conductor with the appellant corporation when there was no pension scheme in force, only the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable. The Corporation framed the 1990 regulations concerning the pension scheme which had a retrospective effect and provided that it was binding on the new entrants but was optional for the existing employees. For the existing employees to avail the benefits of the said scheme, they had to submit a written option within six months from the date of publication of the regulations expressing their willingness to switch over to the said pension scheme instead of maintaining their status as CPF holder. The respondent opted for the scheme but no pension was paid to him under the said scheme after his retirement. Following which he filed a writ petition which was allowed by the Single Judge. The order was challenged by the appellants where the Division bench upheld the previous order.
Contention by the Appellant:
The Counsel contended that even though the respondent had applied for availing the benefits of the scheme on time, there were regular deductions from his salary towards provident fund provided by the CPF Scheme and the statements of these deductions were regularly were being sent to him to which he never objected to. The respondent raised the issue only after his retirement due to which he should not be allowed to avail the benefit of the pension scheme.
Contention by the Respondent:
The Counsel stated that since the respondent had submitted his option to avail the benefits of the scheme and it was the duty of the employer to have properly calculated the salary and the deductions required to be made therefrom under different heads. They stated it was only after the retirement that the respondent came to know that the pension was not being paid to him, hence the respondent should not be made to suffer on the account of the corporation’s fault.
Observation by the court:
The Court observed that the appellant filed for an intra-court appeal despite the legally sustainable and equitable order passed by the Single Judge. The Court ascertained that it did not find any merit in the same argument raised by the appellant as there was no conscious abandonment of the right to receive the pension by the respondent to deprive him of the same. The Court took the reference of Kalpraj Dharamshi and Another v. Kotak Investment Advisors Limited and Another (2021) 10 SCC 401 and stated that for establishing waiver, it will have to be established, that a party expressly or by its conduct acted in a manner, which is inconsistent with the continuance of its rights. However, the mere acts of indulgence will not amount to waiver. The court also noted that it was the duty of the Corporation to have to act on the option availed by the respondent and act on it.
Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors., 2023 Latest Caselaw 452 SC
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3462 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 452 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adeel Ahmed, AOR Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pathak, Adv. Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Adv. and Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Susmita Dey, Adv. Ms. Manisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. Harsh Gupta, Adv. Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Adv. Ms. Mani Mala Roy, Adv. Mr. H.K. Naik, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Singh, Adv. and Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
