Siemens Limited, A Company ... vs Shri V. Venugopal And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 532 Bom

JUDGMENT

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court declaring that they have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and directing them to pay to the Respondent workmen Rs. 188/- per month, from the date they attain the age of sixty years, as pension.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as under:-

A settlement was arrived at between the Union representing the Petitioner's workmen and the Petitioners on 4th November 1992. Under this settlement, a superannuation scheme providing for pension to be paid to the employees was formulated and the scheme came into effect from 1st November 1992. The respondents resigned from service on the basis of an early voluntary retirement scheme. Under this scheme, the workmen were allowed to resign from service prior to attaining the age of superannuation which is sixty years. Certain amounts were payable to the workmen under the Scheme. These amounts, according to the Respondent's, were the amounts payable to them upto the age of superannuation and they were paid on monthly instalments. There is no dispute that the Petitioners did in fact pay these amounts to the Respondent workmen. However, according to the Respondent workmen, they were entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 188/- even beyond the age of sixty years as a monthly pension. A Complaint was filed by the Respondents under Section 28 read wit Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It was contended by the Respondents that the Petitioners have discriminated between those who had superannuated at the age of sixty years and those who had retired under the early retirement scheme. They claimed amounts under contributory pension scheme which was introduced in view of the settlement entered into between the Petitioners and the Union with effect from 1st October 1992. According to the Respondents, since they had voluntarily retired, it amounted to superannuation in view of Clause 16 of the Rules and Regulations of the Siemens Employees Superannuation Fund.

3. The Complaint was opposed by the Petitioners who contended that voluntary retirement could not be equated with superannuation and only such employees who were superannuated from service were entitled to the amount of Rs. 188/- per month beyond the age of sixty years. Evidence was led before the Industrial Court. On consideration of the pleadings and the evidence before it, the Industrial Court was of the view that Clause 16 of the Rules and Regulations of Siemens Employees Superannuation Fund read with Clause 19 made the Petitioners liable to pay the amount of Rs. 188/- to the Respondent workmen. According to the Industrial Court, as the retirement was accepted by the Respondent workmen by mutual understanding between the employees and the Petitioner, Clause 16 of the Pension scheme applies and these workmen would have to be considered as having superannuated. He further came to the conclusion that in view of Clause 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(d) read with Clause 16, the Respondent workmen would be entitled to the amount of Rs. 188/- per month irrespective of whether they had contributed to the scheme for the minimum period of five years or they had completed minimum period of ten years of contributory service. It is this order of the Industrial Court which has been impugned in the present Writ Petition.

4. Clause 16 of the Rules and Regulations of Siemens Employees Superannuation Fund reads as under:-

"16. Every employees shall superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. An employee, may, with the consent of the Company resign from service of the Company before attaining the age of 60 years, it there be no cause existing at that justifying a dismissal."

All employees who were confirmed in service of the Company and who were on the rolls of the Company as on 1st October 1992 could join the Fund with effect from 1st October 1992. All other employees who were confirmed in the service after 1st October 1992, shall join the Fund from the first day of the month. Those employees who are confirmed from the date other than the first day of following month. There is no dispute that the Respondent workmen were members of the pension scheme having joined from 1st October 1992 when the scheme came into force. However, the question is whether Clause 16 would permit an employee who voluntarily resigned from service albeit with mutual understanding between him and employer, would amount to superannuation. Clause 16 of the Scheme in fact makes it clear that every employee shall superannuate at the age of 60 years. Therefore, all employees who ceased to be in employment before the age of 60 years do not superannuate. Clause 16 differentiate between those employees who are superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years and those employees who may resign from service of the Company with the consent of the Company before attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, in my opinion, superannuation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement or resignation with consent of the Petitioner.

5. Under Clause 19 of the Pension Scheme, it has been stipulated thus:

"19. No pension shall be payable except in the event provided as under:

1. Benefits on Superannuation:

(a) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (h) below, a ember on superannuation will be entitled to superannuation benefit commencing from the month following superannuation at the rate of 1% of Rs. 3500/- per year of contributory service till life, with return of capital to the nominee on the pensioner's death.

(b) To qualify for the benefit on superannuation a member shall have completed a minimum 10 years of continuous service including a contributory service of 5% years from the date of his joining the Scheme.

(c) For employees who are on roll of the company at the effective date of the scheme and are superannuating will receive minimum of Rs. 188/- per month as pension till their life, with return of capital to the nominee after the death of a pensioner.

(d) Clause (b) will not be applicable to those employees who are on roll of the company at the time of introduction of the scheme and superannuating.

2. ... ... ... ...

3. Benefits on Separation:

On separation other than superannuation from service of a member by his resignation/termination after completing a minimum of ten years of eligible service including a contributory service of fie years from the date of his joining the Scheme, the benefit to that member shall be in accordance with Rule 19(1)(a) above payable from the month following the date on which the member would have superannuated had he continued in the service of the company i.e. 60 years of age.

4. .........

5. ........."

Therefore, the Scheme itself makes a distinction between those who superannuate and those who ceased to be in service due to resignation/termination. In fact, all those members who have completed minimum of ten years of continuous service including contributory service of five years from the date of joining the Scheme are entitled to receive minimum of Rs. 188/- per month as pension during their life time, with return of capital to the nominee after the death of the pensioner. However, in the case of separation, which does not amount to superannuation, an employee who has completed a minimum of ten years of eligible service including contributory service of five years from the date of his joining the scheme, the benefit to that member is payable under Clause 191(a). Admittedly, the Respondent workmen in this case would be entitled to the amount upto the age of 60 years only. Therefore, in my opinion, the finding of the Industrial Court that the concerned workmen having accepted Early Voluntary Retirement, they should not be treated as if they superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years is incorrect. The reasoning of the Industrial Court that since the workmen concerned have retired, Clause 16 of the pension scheme would apply and the workmen would have to be considered as superannuated cannot be accepted. The scheme stipulated that an employee attains superannuation only on attaining the age of 60 years. If the employee has not attained this age, when he ceased to be in employment, the cessation in service cannot be due to superannuation. Therefore, the benefits which an employee who superannuates from service would be entitled to would not be the same as those for employees who ceased to be service for reasons other than superannuation.

6. In view of the above, Writ Petition allowed, Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.