Bombay High Court
Uti Asset Management Company ... vs All India Unit Trust Employees ... on 5 May, 2017
Bench: K.K. Tated
wp1792-07.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1792 OF 2007
UTI Asset Management Company Private Limited .. Petitioner
vs.
All India Unit Trust Employees' Association .. Respondent
Mr.S.K.Talsania, Sr.Advocate a/w Ms.Nandini Menon, Mr.Vishal
Talsania, Mr.Netaji Gawde i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi and Co. for the
Petitioner
Mr.N.M.Ganguli a/w Ms.Karuna Yadav for the respondent
CORAM: K. K. TATED, J.
RESERVED ON: APRIL 27, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON: MAY 5, 2017
P.C.:
1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2 By this Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the
petitioner challenges the award dated 28.02.2007 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.1,
Mumbai in Reference No.CGIT-26 of 2004 holding that the demand of
the respondent Union for giving / exercising the III rd option for pension
to the employees of erstwhile UTI (Now AMC Pvt.Ltd.) w.e.f. 1.9.2000
at par with the RBI, IDBI in view of terms contained in Settlement
dated 18.4.1996 read with Settlement dated 28.3.2001 is legal, proper
Mohite 1/33
wp1792-07.doc
and justified.
3 Prior to 1994, the employees of UTI were enjoying contributory
provident fund as one of the retirement benefits under the Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme. In the year 1994, the board of trustees of the
Unit Trust of India in exercise of the powers vested in it under section
43 (2) (n) of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963, introduced Pension in
lieu of provident fund and also formulated regulations which were
called the Unit Trust of India Pension Regulations, 1994. Some of the
features of the Pension Scheme relevant for the purpose of the present
petition are :
a) It came into force with effect from 1st November, 1993.
b) It applied to all the employees in the service of Unit Trust of
India as on 1st November, 1993 except those who exercise option
in writing not to be governed by pension regulations.
c) It also covered all the employees who were in service of Unit
Trust of India as on 1st January, 1986 and retired before 1st
November, 1993 provided they exercised the option for pension
and refunded the Trust's contribution to Provident Fund
alongwith interest as specified in the Pension Regulations and
the circulars issued thereunder.
d) Qualifying service for pension for 10 years.
e) Employees who joined Unit Trust of India on after 1 st
November, 1993 would be covered only by pension, under UTI
Pension Regulations, 1994.
4 In view of the introduction of Pension Scheme, petitioner issued
Administration Circular No.13/94-95 dated 23.9.1994 explaining in
detail various provisions of the said Pension Regulations. Clause b) of
the said Circular dated 23.9.1994 reads thus :
Mohite 2/33
wp1792-07.doc
"b) Exercising of options:
i) In terms of Regulations 3, employees who were in the service
of the Trust as on November 1, 1993, as also those who have
retired from the Trust's Service between January 1, 1986 and
November 1, 1993 (excluding those who were on LPR as on
January 1, 1986) should be allowed to exercise option in the
prescribed form. Two types of option forms, one for the
employees in service and one for those who have already retired
are enclosed (Annexures II and III). The option once exercised
will be final and irrevocable. The employees in service as well
as the eligible retired employees will have to exercise their
option on or before October 31, 1994 or such further time as
may be allowed by the Trust.
ii) The names and full service particulars of such of the existing
employees who opt for continuing under contributory PF may
be advised to the Zonal Offices who in turn should forward a
consolidated statement to the Chief General Manager,
Department of Personnel, Corporate Office, Bombay, with a
copy to the General Manager, Department of Accounts,
Corporate Office in the Statement No.1, Annexure IV) by
November 14, 1994, for making suitable remarks in the
respective PF accounts. Please note that a copy of the option
forms is to be sent alongwith this statement. Suitable remarks
are also to be made in the service sheets of such optees whose
relative records are maintained in the concerned office. The
original option forms, thereafter, be filled in the service filed of
the respective employees. In the case of officers who's service
files/sheets are maintained at Corporate Office, their option
forms should be forwarded to the Chief General Manager,
Department of Personnel, Corporate Office, Bombay after
making necessary remarks on the service sheets maintained by
the concerned office.
iii) All employees in service as on November 1, 1993,
except those who exercise option not to be governed by the
Pension Regulations will be deemed to have joined the Pension
Scheme. Such of those employees who fail to exercise their
option before the appointed date i.e. October 31, 1994 will also
be deemed to have joined the scheme. In the case of all such
employees, the contributory Provident Fund Benefit will cease to
exist from November 1, 1993 and the Trust's contribution to PF
Mohite 3/33
wp1792-07.doc
alongwith accrued interest for the past period of their service
will revert to the Trust for being transferred to the Pension Fund
in due course.
iv) The eligible retired employees will have to submit their
options to the Chief General Manager, Personnel and
Administration, Unit Trust of India, Bombay on or before
October 31, 1994 failing which it will be presumed that they do
not wish to join the scheme."
5 Thereafter, the option was given by RBI / IDBI to their employees
about pension scheme. On the basis of RBI/IDBI decision, the
Petitioner issued administration Circular No.30/1994-95 dated
20.2.1995 and gave opportunity to the employees either to accept
pension scheme or to continue with Provident Fund Scheme.
Paragraph 2 and 3 of the said letter dated 20.2.1995 reads thus:
"2. On re-examination of the aforesaid provision, it has
been decided that the employees who have joined the Trusts
service on or after November 1, 1993 but on or before
December 31, 1994 be also given an option. Accordingly
employees who have joined the service of the Trust between
November 1, 1993 and December 31, 1994 may exercise their
option in writing on or before the appointed date i.e. March 31,
1995 in the prescribed form (copy enclosed) not to be governed
by the UTI Pension Regulations 1994 and to continue to retain
the Contributory Provident Fund."
"3. The employees who have joined the services of the
Trust during the above period November 1, 1993 to December
31, 1994 except those who exercise an option on or before the
appointed date of March 31, 1995 not to be governed by the
UTI Pension Regulations, 1994, will be deemed to have joined
the Pension Scheme."
6 Again on the basis of option given by RBI / IDBI to their
employees, Petitioner by their administrative Circular No.12/96-97
Mohite 4/33
wp1792-07.doc
dated 24.12.1996 gave option to their employees who had earlier opted
not to be governed by the Pension Regulation and continued to be
covered by Contributory Provident Fund, on the terms and conditions
set out therein. The said letter reads thus:
"All the Departmental Heads at Corporate Office and Zonal
/ Branch Office in-charges
Administration Circular No.12/96-97
UTI Pension Regulations, 1994 - Exercising of Option
Consequent on revision of scales of pay and allowances of the
employees of the Trust it has been decided to allow the
employees who were in the Trust's service as on December 31,
1994 (excluding those who were on Leave Preparatory to
retirement on that date) and who had earlier chosen to retain
the CPF benefit to exercise a fresh option to be governed by UTI
Pension Regulations 1994. In this connection, it is clarified as
under:
(i) The employees who were in the service of the Trust as
on December 31, 1994 may be allowed to exercise a fresh
option in the enclosed Form 1-E (Annexure I).
(ii) The employees who were in the service as on November
1, 1993 (excluding those who were on Leave Preparatory to
retirement on that date) and retired subsequently on CPF
should be advised by registered post that they are eligible to
exercise option to be governed by UTI Pension Regulations,
1994 in enclosed Form 1-F (Annexure II). The exercising of
such option by these employees will be subject to the following:
(a) refund of Trust's contribution to Provident Fund with
accrued interest together with simple interest @ 12% per
annum thereon from the date of payment till the date of refund
to the Trust.
(b) they will be eligible for commutation of pension on the
basis of the age at next birthday on the date of receipt of
application for commutation subject to medical examination,
Mohite 5/33
wp1792-07.doc
wherever necessary, as per the existing rules,
(c) they will be eligible for full pension from the date of
their retirement upto the date of commutation and commuted
pension thereafter.
(iii) The spouses/eligible family members of the employees
who were in service as on November 1, 1993 and expired
thereafter, will also be allowed to exercise option for family
pension in Form 1-G (Annexure-III) subject to te following
conditions:
(a) amount of Trust's contribution to Provident Fund with
accrued interest together with simple interest @ 12% per
annum thereon should be refund from the date of payment till
the date of refund to the Trust.
(b) communication of family pension will not be
permissible.
2. The contents of this circular may please be brought to the
notice of all the employees attached to your 1
-office/department who have retrained CPF benefits and their
acquittances for having noted the contents of the circular be
obtained and placed in a separate file.
Similarly, a copy of the circular should also be sent to the
employees who are on leave/deputation/training/tour/ etc to
their addresses and their acquittances be obtained.
3. A copy of the circular together with the relevant option form
in respect of retired employees/eligible family members
(together with other relevant information) will be sent by
Department of Personnel, Corporate Office to each of such
employees/eligible family membes who were in the Trust's
service as on November 1, 1993 and retired/expired thereafter
with CPF benefits.
4. The option should be exercised by February 28, 1997. The
option once exercised will be final and irrevocable.
5. Copies of this circular may be displayed on the Notice Board,
a copy each should also be furnished to the recognised
Mohite 6/33
wp1792-07.doc
Unions/Association of employees in the respective centres.
6. A copy of the Office order giving the names of the employees
exercising their option in Form I-E, together with their
designations and Provident Fund Index no. may be forwarded
to the Executive Director, Personnel and Administration, UTI,
Corporate Office, Mumbai.
Suitable remarks should be made in the Provident Fund
Account Sheets and Service Sheets of such optees.
The option forms (together with Form 4 giving details of family
and one photograph of the first eligible family member) should,
thereafter be filed in the service files of the respective employees.
In the case of officers whose Service Sheets are maintained at
Corporate Office, their option form (together with Form 4
giving details of family and one photograph of the first eligible
family member) should be forwarded to the Executive Director,
Personnel and Administration, UTI, Mumbai for further action.
7. Receipt of this circular may please be acknowledged."
7 Petitioner and respondent entered into Memorandum of
Settlement dated 28.3.2001 for their terms and conditions of service.
Relevant terms of settlement as per Memorandum of Settlement dated
28.3.2001 are as under:
"(1) The Trust shall have its own compensation package
and service conditions for its workmen employees with effect
from January 1, 2001. The revision / changes if any, in pay
and allowances and other service conditions, taking place in
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from the said date onwards will
not have any bearing on the compensation package and other
service conditions in the Trust. Accordingly, clause 31(ii) of
Memorandum of Settlement dated April 18, 1996 shall
henceforth have no effect and would cease to operate."
(13) SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS
(A) Provident Fund
Mohite 7/33
wp1792-07.doc
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue. However, those workmen employees who are
contributing additional subscriptions to the Provident Fund
under the Unit Trust of India Employees' Provident Fund
(Additional Subscriptions) Regulations, 1964 may, if they so
desire, modify the earlier instructions with regard to rate of
additional subscriptions with retrospective effect from January
1, 2001, subject to the condition that the additional
subscription will be in multiples of 5 % of pay as provided
under the Regulations and that the option will not result in any
refund of the additional subscription already paid by the
workmen employees.
(B) Pension Scheme
Consequent on revision in pay and allowance and also on
account of merger of dearness allowance into basic pay, any
changes/amendments, which are found necessary will be made
in UTI Pension Regulations, 1994. Till such time, UTI Pension
Regulations, 1994 are amended, pension benefits in respect of
those employees who have retired on or after January 1, 2001
will continue at the existing rate worked out on notional basis.
(C) Gratuity
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue. Additional gratuity admissible, if any, on the basis of
revised pay will be payable to all workmen employees who were
in service of the Trust as on January 1, 2001, including those
who were on Leave Preparatory to Retirement as on that date
and ceased to be in service after that date.
(D) Compassionate Gratuity
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue.
(E) Compassionate Financial Assistance
The existing provisions contained in the Memorandum of
Settlement dated August 23, 1999 is modified as under:
Mohite 8/33
wp1792-07.doc
a. The financial support as ex-gratia lupsum payment to the
bereaved family will be the higher of the two amounts stated at
(i) and (ii) below, subject to the ceiling stated at (iii).
(i) 1.2 times the total monthly emoluments last drawn for
every completed year of service.
(ii) 1.8 times the total monthly emoluments last drawn for
every remaining year of service.
(iii) Provided that the ex-gratia payment will be
limited to the total monthly emoluments (last drawn) for
the remaining service of the deceased workmen employee
worked out notionally, as per the age of retirement,
prescribed under Unit Trust of India (Staff) Rules, 1978.
The floor limit for the ex-gratia payment will be notional
commutation value of pension.
b. In cases of workmen employees who have not availed housing
loan from the Trust, the spouse/dependants will be given an
additional amount equivalent to 7 times the total monthly
emoluments on the basis of salary last drawn.
c. The Compassionate compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
introduced vide Adm. Circular No.7/94-95 dated September 1,
1994 is withdrawn. Compassionate Gratuity will be payable to
the nominee/legal heir of the employee dying while in service @
one month pay (at the rate admissible to the deceased workman
employee at the time of death) for every completed year of
service subject to a minimum of 2 months pay and allowances
and a maximum of Rs.15,000/-.
d. There will be no provision for employment on compassionate
grounds.
e. The above is effective from December 1, 1994.
20. DATE OF EFFECT
(a) The Management agrees to extend the benefits of the
revised Pay & Allowances on the lines of Reserve Bank of India
for the period November 1, 1997 till December 31, 2000.
Mohite 9/33
wp1792-07.doc
(b) It is agreed that this settlement shall come into force
from January 1, 2001 and shall remain in force till December
31, 2003 both days includive and shall continue to be binding
on the parties even thereafter as stipulated under the Section
19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(c) It is also agreed that Memorandum of Understanding
dated December 8, 2000 was not given effect to and stands
cancelled.
21) GENERAL
It is agreed that
(a) the other existing terms and conditions of service for
workmen employees express or implied which have not been
specifically dealt with herein, shall continue unaffected.
(b) the common endeavor of the Trust and the AIUTEA
shall be to achieve improvements in productivity keeping in
view the best interest of the unitholders.
(c) if any doubt or difficulty arises regarding
interpretation of any provision of this Settlement, the matter
shall be discussed mutually with a view to resolve the same.
(d) The AIUTEA may submit new Charter of Demand any
time during last six months of the currency of this settlement
and the Trust will hold the negotiations with a view to reach a
new settlement at the earliest.
(e) the AIUTEA agrees to withdraw all pending industrial
disputes of whatever nature and wherever raised.
23) OTHER DEMANDS
The AIUTEA agrees that during the period of operation of this
settlement they shall not raise any new demands involving
directly or indirectly any additional financial burden on the
employer."
8 Thereafter, the RBI again extended time for their employees for
Mohite 10/33
wp1792-07.doc
exercising the option to either accept Pension Scheme or to Continue
provident fund scheme. On the basis of RBI's Circular the respondent
again demanded extention of time for their members for exercising the
option. The same was not accepted by the Petitioner. Hence, the
respondent All India Unit Trust Employees' Association made a demand
with Assistant Labour Commissioner (I) by their letter dated 3.9.2003
for directing the petitioner to allow their member to accept the Pension
Scheme. Pursuant to the said respondent's grievance Under Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order dated 24.3.2004
in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 1 and sub-
section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made a
reference for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No.1, Mumbai which was as follows:
"Whether the demand of the Union for giving/exercising the
IIIrd option to the employees of the erstwhile UTI (Now UTI
AMC Pvt.Ltd.) w.e.f. 1.9.2000 at par with the RBI / IDBI in
view of terms contained in settlement dated 18.4.1996 read
with settlement dated 28.3.2001 is legal proper and justified? If
so what relief the Union is entitled for and from which date and
what order directions are necessary in the matter?"
9 In the said Reference, the respondent filed their statement of
claim dated 14.5.2004 before the Industrial Court. The Petitioner also
filed their written statement dated 23.6.2004 opposing the reference.
On the basis of pleadings on record and submissions, the Industrial
Court passed the impugned award dated 28.2.2007 in Reference
No.CGIT-26 of 2004. Hence, the present petition is preferred by the
petitioner.
10 The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Mohite 11/33
wp1792-07.doc
Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioners
are bound to provide 3rd option for pension to the members of the
respondent w.e.f. 1.9.2000 at par with the RBI / IDBI in lieu of the
terms contained in settlement dated 18.4.1996 read with settlement
dated 28.3.2001.
11 The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner in 1994 introduced Pension Scheme vide UTI Pension
Regulations, 1994. As per Clause 3 of Pension Regulations, Pension
Regulations would apply to (i) The employees who joined the trust's
services on or after 1.11.1993 and (ii) the employees who are in the
service of the Trust as on 1.11.1993 except those employees who,
within the period prescribed by the trust exercise an option in writing
not to be governed by these Regulations. He submits that in view of
this fact all the existing employees were covered by the Pension
Regulation unless an employee specifically denied to join the pension
scheme. He submits that Clause 4 of the said scheme reads thus:
"4. Eligibility
Pension will be payable on retirement to a full-time employee
and to a part-time employee on part-time work exceeding
thirteen hours per week, provided they have completed a
minimum service shall not be applicable for drawing Family
Pension in the case of an employee who dies while in service."
12 The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
petitioner issued the administration circular dated 23.9.1994 bearing
no.13/94-95 by which the employees were communicated the
provisions of Pension Regulations and were given option under
regulation 3 to opt out of the pension regulation. He submits that
Mohite 12/33
wp1792-07.doc
pursuant to the said regulation maximum employees accepted the
pension scheme. Thereafter again in the interest of Justice on the basis
of option given by RBI / IDBI to their employees, petitioner again by
their administration circular no.30/94-95 dated 20.2.1995 informed to
their employees that the employee who had joined between 1.11.1993
and 31.12.1994 may exercise their option in writing on or before the
appointed dated 31.3.1995 in prescribed form not to be governed by
the Unit Trust of India's Pension Scheme or continue to retain the
Contributory Provident Fund. He submits that thereafter on 18.4.1996
settlement was arrived at between the Petitioner and respondent under
section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relating to pay revision and
other terms and conditions of service. The relevant clauses of the said
settlement are as under:
"(26) SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS
(A) Provident Fund
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue. However, those employees who are contributing
additional subscriptions to the Provident Fund under the Unit
Trust of India employees provident fund (additional
subscriptions) regulations, 1964 may, if they so desire, modify
the earlier instructions with regard to rate of additional
subscription with retrospective effect from 1st November, 1992
subject to the conditions that the additional subscription will be
in multiples of 5% of pay as provided under the regulations and
that the option will not result in any refund of the additional
subscription already paid by the employees.
(B) Gratuity
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue. Additional gratuity admissible, if any, on the basis of
revised pay will be payable to all employees who were in service
of the Trust as on 1st November, 1992, including those who were
on leave preparatory to retirement as on that date and ceased
Mohite 13/33
wp1792-07.doc
to be in service after that date.
(C) Compassionate compensation.
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue.
(D) Pension
There is no change in the existing rules and the same shall
continue.
(30) OTHER DEMANDS
In view of this Settlement, the Association as a gesture of
goodwill and with a view to continued harmonious industrial
relations with the employer as hitherto drops demand Nos.7, 9,
13, 15, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34 & 35. Items 21 (medical Aid) and
23 (Staff quarters) will be discussed and settled at the earliest.
The association further agrees that during the period of
operation of this settlement they shall not raise any new
demands involving, directly or indirectly any additional
financial in view of this settlement, the association as a gesture
of goodwill and with a view to burden on the employer, save
and except to the extent envisaged by item No.31 of this
settlement.
(31) DATE OF EFFECT
(i) It is agreed that this settlement shall come into force
from June 14, 1995 and shall remain in force for a period of
five years ending on June 13, 2000 both days inclusive and
shall continue to be binding on the parties even thereafter as
stipulated under the section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
(ii) It is further agreed by the employer that they shall
revise pay and allowances by an agreement with the All India
Unit Trust Employees' Association in the event of any revision/s
occurring in the Reserve Bank of India and Industrial
Development Bank of India during the period of operation of
this settlement and effective from the date from which it
becomes operative in Reserve Bank of India and Industrial
Development Bank of India.
Mohite 14/33
wp1792-07.doc
(iii) It is agreed that in accordance with clause XXIII (2) of
the settlement dated September 4, 1986 between the parties,
the revised scales of pay and allowances in this settlement at
item Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24,
26(A), (B) and (C) shall be effective from November 1, 1992
and item No.18 shall be effective from November 1, 1994 as
has been done in Reserve Bank of India and Industrial
Development Bank of India and other clauses, namely 12 and
28 shall be effective from the date of signing of this settlement,
viz., April 18, 1996.
(iv) It is agreed that item Nos.19, 21, 22 and 27 of the
settlement will be modified on the lines of RBI / IDBI and made
effective from the date on which they become effective in RBI /
IDBI."
13 The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in
view of clause 30 of 1996 Settlement it is clear that no new demand
involving financial burden can be raised by respondent except as
provided in clause 31. He submits that the Petitioner issued another
administration Circular 12/96-97 dated 24.12.1996 giving second
option to the employees who had earlier opted to be not governed by
the pension regulation and to continue to be covered by the
contributory provident fund on the terms and conditions as set out
therein.
14 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of
giving two options, the respondent again demanded one more option
for remaining workers / employees inspite of 1996 and 2001
settlement. The learned Senior Counsel submits that as the petitioner
and respondent decided to discontinue the terms and conditions of
service provided by RBI / IDBI to their employees, the Petitioner
declined to accept the respondent's demand for providing the 3 rd option
Mohite 15/33
wp1792-07.doc
to their members. He submits that these facts were not considered by
the Industrial Court at the time of passing of the impugned award.
Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
impugned award is required to be set aside on following grounds:
"a. The Award passed by the Tribunal is ex-facie illegal
and perverse.
b. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the demand made by
the Respondent-Association was for the third option for
pension. Admittedly, the Pension Scheme was already in force
and earlier two options were already given to the employees to
opt either for pension or continue with the provident fund.
Whether to give or not to give third option is purely a
management's decision and is, in any case, not related to the
conditions of service of any employee. Therefore, there cannot
be any industrial dispute as to whether the management should
give further option to the employees to opt for pension instead
of provident fund. Under the circumstances, there cannot be
any reference for adjudication of a non-existing industrial
dispute. The Tribunal therefore, ought to have rejected the
Reference;
c. The Tribunal failed to consider that the demand raised by the
Respondent Association was illegal in view of settlement of
2001, wherein the Respondent Association specifically agreed
not to raise any new demand imposing additional financial
burden on the management. Admittedly, giving of third option
for pension would impose huge financial burden on the
Petitioner. Therefore, the demand ought to have been rejected.
d. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the case of the
Respondent-Association was, at the highest, that there was an
identical pay scale and terms and conditions of employment
between the employees of Reserve Bank of India and IDBI on
one hand and the erstwhile Unit Trust of India on the other.
Assuming that to be true, it was also an undisputed position
that every settlement between the erstwhile Unit Trust of India
and the Respondent-Association relating to pay scales and
service conditions were negotiated settlements and not a
Mohite 16/33
wp1792-07.doc
mechanical or automatic adoption of whatever the RBI or IDBI
had decided / settled with their own employees. Under these
circumstances, the Petitioner could not have been compelled to
give third option of pension to the employees merely on the
basis that the RBI and IDBI had given such option to their
employees.
e. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that in the settlement of
2001, there was de-linkage of any parity in the service
conditions of the employees of RBI and IDBI and their
employees on the one hand and the erstwhile Unit Trust of
India and its employees on the other hand.
f. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that under the 2001
Settlement, the Respondent-Association had expressly agreed (i)
to withdraw any demand relating to any industrial dispute
wherever pending, (ii) not to raise any new demand involving
additional financial burden on the management and (iii) that
existing Pension Scheme would continue. In view of the above
specific terms of settlement, the demand raised by the
Respondent Association for third option for pension was totally
illegal and ought to have been rejected by the Tribunal.
g. The Tribunal has preferred oral assurances by the office
bearers of the Respondent-Association to the documentary
evidence on record. By various documents filed by both the
parties, it was clear that when the negotiations were being held
prior to settlement of 2001, the RBI had already announced the
third option for pension to its employees and it was also clear
that the management of erstwhile Unit Trust of India was not
inclined to give any such option to the employees concerned in
the Reference. Notwithstanding the said fact the Respondent-
Association has agreed to treat the demands settled by the
settlement as full and final settlement and not to raise any new
demand and also to drop any other industrial dispute pending
any where, which would lead to the irrefutable conclusion that
there was no assurance by the management of the erstwhile
Unit Trust of India to consider the alleged demand of the
Respondent-Association for third option for pension in the line
with RBI. The Tribunal thus, committed grave error of law in
discarding the documentary evidence on record while recording
a finding that the management of erstwhile Unit Trust of India
Mohite 17/33
wp1792-07.doc
had given assurance to the office bearers of the Respondent-
Association that their alleged demand for third option for
pension would be considered, making the finding perverse;
h. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that even if the assertions of
oral assurances by the office bearers of the Respondent-
Association were to be taken at its face value, it would, at the
highest, mean that the management would consider the
demand and not that the management would concede or grant
the demand. The Tribunal has grossly erred in concluding that
considering the demand would mean granting the demand.
i. The Tribunal has wrongly recorded in paragraph 12 of the
Award (i) that there was no dispute about the fact that the
workmen had been given all the benefits which are availed by
the staff of RBI and IDBI since 1994 under the Pension
Regulations, 1994, (ii) that the first and second options given
to the staff of RBI were extended to the workmen under the
Reference despite existence of Memorandum of Settlement and
(iii) that as and when there was any circular issued by RBI,
regarding upward pay revision and accordingly, it was accorded
to the workmen under Reference. The above three facts were
seriously disputed by the Petitioner and the Tribunal has grossly
erred in recording that the said above-referred facts were
admitted. Indeed, the record itself would indicate that there
have been separate settlements and Pension Regulations
governing the employees of the erstwhile Unit Trust of India;
j. The Tribunal has grossly erred in concluding that the
employees of the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation that
the Management of erstwhile Unit Trust of India would extend
the third option for pension. The Tribunal has based the
conclusion on alleged oral assurances by the management of the
erstwhile Unit Trust of India, which, as set out hereinabove,
were not only seriously disputed but could not have been said to
be established in view of the documentary evidence to the
contrary.
k. The Tribunal has not at all considered the huge financial
implication of granting the demand for third option for
pension, which in the existing scenario, the Petitioner would
not be able to bear. It is an undisputed position that the
Mohite 18/33
wp1792-07.doc
Petitioner is competing with several Indian and multi-national
mutual funds and in an open and competitive market it would
be impossible to absorb such an exorbitant financial burden;
l. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the only justification in
support of the demand was that the Reserve Bank of India and
IDBI has granted such option to their employees. There was no
other justification offered by the Respondent-Association in
support of its demand.
m.The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the subsequent
events viz. Repeal of the Unit Trust of India Act and
incorporation of the Petitioner-Company which is exposed to
serious competition from various other national and
international level mutual funds. Under the circumstances, the
employees of the Petitioner ceased to be, in any way,
comparable to the employees of RBI or IDBI.
o. That the learned Presiding Officer failed to appreciate that
when the Respondent addressed a letter to the erstwhile
management on 08.04.2001, they did not raise the question of
pension option as one of the issued to be discussed during the
course of discussion of the 'residual issues'. The learned
Presiding Officer ought to have held that this indicated that the
question of giving a IIIrd pension option did not arise at all and
that the said issue had been decisively concluded against the
Respondent;
p. That having once exercised their option in respect of the
pension scheme, the employees cannot be permitted to agitate
the same issue time and again. The employees cannot seek a
backdoor method to exercise pension option which have been
closed to them forever."
15 The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner filed written
submissions dated 27.4.2017 in support of his contention. The learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if the impugned award is
not set aside, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to them.
Mohite 19/33
wp1792-07.doc
16 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposed the present Writ Petition. He submits that under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is very limited scope to
set aside the award unless and until it is contrary to the well settled
principle of law.
17 The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that erstwhile
Unit Trust of India (UTI) was a legal creature created by statute and
was a Statutory Corporation established by an Act of Parliament, i.e.
Unit Trust of India Act, 1963. It came into existence on 1 st of February,
1963. From that date till 1976, the UTI was a part of Reserve Bank of
India (RBI). It was being managed by RBI and the employees / officers
who were managing it were the employees / officers of RBI on
deputation with UTI. Therefore, the service conditions of the
employees of UTI were the same as of the employees of RBI. On 16 th
February, 1976, it was separated from RBI. In terms of Sub-section 3 of
Section 31 of the Unit Trusts of India Act, 1963 all the members of Staff
of RBI who were working in UTI on 16 th February, 1976 and opted to be
the employees of UTI were deemed to be appointed by UTI on the same
salary, emoluments and other terms and conditions of the service to
which they were entitled while in the employment of RBI as on 16 th
February, 1976. Those not interested to continue in UTI were given
option to go back to RBI. Thus, the pay scales and service conditions of
the staff who thus opted to remain with UTI was on the same line as
the pay scales and service conditions as existing in RBI.
18 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that after
separation from RBI, the UTI decided to continue following the pay
scales and service conditions of RBI for its newly recruited staff and
Mohite 20/33
wp1792-07.doc
accordingly the said pay scales and service conditions of RBI were
followed all along till devising its own pay scales and service conditions
distinct from RBI with effect from 1 st January, 2001 in terms of
tripartite settlement dated 28th March, 2001.
19 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that the
erstwhile Unit Trust of India introduced UTI Pension Regulations 1994
for the employees. Same was similar to those as governing the Pension
Scheme prevailing at RBI and IDBI. It was also envisaged that the UTI
Pension Scheme will always be implemented having regard to the
corresponding provisions of RBI Pension Regulations, 1990 or IDBI
Pension Regulations, 1993. Accordingly in terms of the Pension
Scheme prevailing in RBI & IDBI, UTI followed the same and allowed
its employees option to join Pension Scheme vide its Circular dated 24 th
December, 1996.
20 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that it has
always been a practice and custom sanctioned through tripartite
settlements between the workmen and the management to incorporate
the various service conditions on par with RBI & IDBI. A perusal of
various changes in the service conditions right from 1979 will show
that major service conditions, such as Age of Retirement, Housing Loan,
etc. have always been at par with RBI & IDBI and even other service
conditions such as Fan Advance, Bicycle Advance, etc. have been the
same as applicable to the employees of RBI & IDBI. Whenever
improvements were brought in the service conditions of the employees
of RBI & IDBI, the same were incorporated and implemented for the
employees of UTI also. The memorandum of settlement dated 18 th
April, 1996 in paragraph 26(D) on Pension, provides that there is no
Mohite 21/33
wp1792-07.doc
change in the existing rules and the same shall continue.
21 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that immediately
after settlement, UTI management offered option to its employees to
opt for Pension Scheme, if desired, vide Circular Reference No.12/96-
97 dated 24th December, 1996. This settlement was binding on both
the parties till 31st December, 2000. In Reserve Bank of India, third
option was allowed to its employees vide Circular No.8 dated 14 th of
September, 2000. It was obligatory on the part of UTI Management to
have extended third option to its employees to opt for pension. The
contents in paragraph I of the settlement dated 28 th March, 2001
expressly provide that revisions, if any, in pay and allowances and other
service conditions taking place in RBI will not have any bearing on the
compensation package and other service conditions in the Trust after 1 st
January, 2001. In true interpretation of the settlement dated 18 th April,
1996 as also the settlement dated 28 th March, 2001, it was obligatory
on the part of UTI management to have been given third option to its
employees to opt for pension scheme since the same was provided in
RBI before the settlement dated 28th March, 2001 was enforced.
22 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that the
Management of UTI has referred to Union a letter dated 8 th April, 2001
stating that Union had not set out pension option as one of the issues to
be discussed during the course of discussion of residual issues.
Historically speaking UTI Pension Scheme was introduced in 1994 on
the same pattern as of Pension Scheme introduced by RBI & IDBI. In
the settlement dated 18th April, 1996 it was provided for settlement of
residual issues but in the correspondence thereafter Union had no
cause to mention the same as residual issue because consequent on the
Mohite 22/33
wp1792-07.doc
revision of pay scales and allowances of the employees of the Trust, the
Management has decided to allow the employees the benefit to exercise
fresh option to be governed by UTI Pension Regulation 1994. This
decision was implemented vide Circular No.12/96-97 dated 24 th
December, 1996, whereas the settlement was dated 16th April, 1996.
23 The learned Counsel for the respondent submit that in view of
the assurances given by the petitioner during the discussion while
settling the Charter of demands, they were under the impression that it
is not necessary to put the same immediately in writing as a residual
issue in its letter dated 8th April, 2001. In view of the specific assurance
of the Management during discussions and also in view of the practice
and custom of following RBI & IDBI to introduce any change there for
incorporating the same in UTI also. Respondent was under impression
that they were entitled the same. However, as soon as it became clear
that Management was trying to go back from their assurances and was
trying to take the Union for a ride, Union in its letter dated 2 nd April,
2002 mentioned the pension option as the settled issue awaiting
implementation.
24 The learned Counsel for the respondent also filed written
submissions in support of his contentions/submission dated 27.4.2017.
He submits that the Apex Court in the matter of Anoop Sharma v.
Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana),
2010 - Volume II CLR 1 held that in rare case the High Court should
interfere with the award passed by Industrial Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. He relies on paragraph 10 and 11 of the
said authority which reads thus:
Mohite 23/33
wp1792-07.doc
"10. A reading of the impugned order shows that the Division
Bench of the High Court set aside the award of the Labour
Court without even adverting to the fact that challenge to
similar award passed in the cases of other employees was
negatived by the High Court and this Court. We have no doubt
that if the Division Bench had taken the trouble of ascertaining
the status of the disputes raised by other employees, then it
would have discovered that the award of reinstatement of
similarly situated employees has been upheld by the High Court
and this Court and in that event, it may not have passed the
impugned order. That apart, we find that even though the
Division Bench did not come to the conclusion that the finding
recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of non-compliance of
Section 25-F of the Act is vitiated by an error of law apparent
on the face of the record, it allowed the writ petition by
assuming that the appellant's initial engagement/employment
was not legal and the respondent had complied with the
conditions of a valid retrenchment. In our view, the approach
adopted by the Division Bench is contrary to the judicially
recognised limitations of the High Court's power to issue writ of
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution - Syed Yakoob v.
K.S. Radhakrishnan(1964) 5 SCR 64, Municipal Board,
Saharanpur v. Imperial Tobacco of India Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC
566,Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bhagat(2002) 6 SCC
552, Mohd.Shahnawad Akhtar v. 1st ADK Varanasi JT 2002
(8) SC 69, Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers'
Association (2004) 10 SCC 460, Dharamraj and others v.
Chhitan and others 2006 (11) SCALE 292 and Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Ltd. 2008 (12) SCALE 582."
"11. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (supra), the
Constitution Bench of this Court considered the scope of the
High Court's jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in cases
involving challenge to the orders passed by the authorities
entrusted with quasi judicial functions under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939. Speaking for majority of the Constitution Bench,
Gajendragadkar, J. observed as under:
".....................A writ of certiorari can be issued for
correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior
courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are
Mohite 24/33
wp1792-07.doc
passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction,
or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise
jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in
exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or
Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it
decides a question without giving an opportunity to be
heard to the party affected by the order, or where the
procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed
to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no
doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a
supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not
entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation
necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the
inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation
of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face
of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a
finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari
can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said
finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit
admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based
on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law
which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing
with this category of cases, however, we must always bear
in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of
certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or
inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the
said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is
within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the
High Courts under Art.226 to issue a writ of certiorari
can be legitimately exercised."
(emphasis supplied)"
Mohite 25/33
wp1792-07.doc
25 The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Apex
Court in the matter of Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and
Another, (2015) 4 SCC 458 held that interference with the finding of
fact recorded by Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal under Industrial
Dispute Act and similar social welfare legislation should not interfere
unless and until same is perverse, against the well settled principle of
law. He relies on paragraph 19 which reads thus:
"19. Further in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab
State Warehousing Corporation (supra), wherein this Court
opined on the exercise of power by the High Court Under Article
227 of the Constitution of India as under: (SCC p. 205, para
21)
21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that
while exercising jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and/or 227 of
the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High
Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial
Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social
welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted
keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the
Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in
general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in
particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social
order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure
equality between men and women and equitable distribution of
material resources of the community to sub-serve the common
good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More
than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J., opined that:
'10. ... The concept of social and economic justice is
a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives
sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and
significance to the ideal of welfare State"
(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958
SC 923."
Mohite 26/33
wp1792-07.doc
26 The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that similar
view taken by the Apex Court in the matter of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd.
Mustaqim and others, AIR 1984 SC 38. He relies on paragraph 6 and
7 which reads thus:
"6. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was
wholly misconceived. An appeal lay from an order under Order
XXI. Rule 92 setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale, under
Order XLIII, Rule 1 (i) to the District Judge. That apart, the
application made by the petitioner claiming to be the legal
representative of the surety, the judgment-debtor's
representative, on the one hand and the auction-purchaser, the
decree-holder's representative, on the other alleging that there
had been a fraud perpetrated by the decree-holder in causing
the sale to be held, with a prayer for recording satisfaction of
the decree under Order XXI, Rule 2. raised a question relating
to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and
therefore fell within the purview of Section 47 which prior to
February 1, 1977 was appealable because then a decision under
Section 47 was deemed to be a decree under Section 2(2) of the
Code, and therefore the petitioner had the remedy of an appeal
to the District Judge. Even if no appeal lay against the
impugned orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, the
petitioner had the remedy of filing a revision before the High
Court under Section 115 of the Code. Upon any view of the
matter, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
impugned orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
under Article 227 of the Constitution. A mere wrong decision
without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 227.
7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that
an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its
authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of
the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in
our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the
face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the
learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he
act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the
Mohite 27/33
wp1792-07.doc
procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure
established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under
Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court
or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon
which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal
purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
27 On the basis of these submissions and the authorities of the Apex
Court, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no
substance in the present Writ Petition and same is required to be
dismissed with costs.
28 I have heard both the sides at length. Considering the
submissions made by both the parties the point to decide is whether the
award passed by Industrial Court dated 28.2.2007 in Reference
No.CGIT No.26 of 2004 can sustain in law on the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
29 In the present proceeding, earlier all the employees of the
petitioners were covered under the Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme. Thereafter the petitioner introduced Unit Trust of India
Pension Regulations 1994. That time the Petitioner gave option to their
employees either to opt Pension Scheme or to continue with the
Provident Fund Contributory Scheme. It was specifically stated in the
said offer that those who do not want to accept pension scheme they
have to give in writing in Form No.1. Pursuant to the said offer some
of the employees of the Petitioner executed Form No.1 stating that they
do not wish to govern by the UTI Pension Regulations, 1994. Inspite of
that petitioner again gave one more chance to the members of the
respondent for accepting Pension Scheme. Inspite of that some of the
members of the respondent Union failed to accept the same.
Mohite 28/33
wp1792-07.doc
30 The petitioner and respondent executed memorandum of
settlement dated 28.3.2001. It was agreed between the parties that
petitioner shall have its own compensation package and service
conditions for its workmen employee w.e.f. January 1, 2001. The
revision/changes if any, in pay and allowances and other service
condition / taking place in the RBI from the said date onwards will not
have any bearing on the compensation package and other service
conditions in the Trust. Inspite of the terms and conditions of
memorandum of settlement dated 28.3.2001 the respondent Union
demanded 3rd option for their members for accepting the UTI Pension
Regulations, 1994.
31 It is to be noted that after introduction of the Pension Regulation
the petitioner granted twice the opportunity to the respondent's
members to accept the same. Inspite of that, some of the members of
the respondent declined to accept the same by giving in writing in Form
No.1. This itself shows that having knowledge of the entire scheme
and the settlement dated 28.3.2001, members of the respondent Union
accepted not to govern by the Unit Trust of India Pension Regulation,
1994 introduced by the petitioner.
32 When the RBI granted 3rd option that was declined by the
petitioner on the ground that in view of the terms and conditions of the
memorandum of settlement dated 28.3.2001 it was not binding on the
petitioner to accept and continue whatever the benefits granted by RBI
to their employees. These facts were not properly considered by the
Industrial Court at the time of passing the award. Industrial Court in its
award held that officers of the petitioner gave oral assurances to the
Mohite 29/33
wp1792-07.doc
respondent members that they will provide the 3 rd option to them for
accepting Pension Regulations, 1994 which is contrary to the evidence
on record. The Industrial Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned award
held as under:
"The management has tried to deny the factum of giving the
assurance but this denial is apparently false. Mr.Harish
Sharma, a witness for the Union in the capacity of President of
All India Unit Trust of India Association stated that assurance
was given by, the management. The management means
Mr.A.R.Palwankar, Executive Director, Mr.D.S.Murthy, Executive
Director B.S.Pandit, Executive Director and
Mr.M.Parameshwaran, Chief General Manager. The
management had the opportunity to examine any one of them
to rebut the theory of assurance but this Course was not opted
for the reasons best known to it. Contrary to it, the
management examined Mr.R.Subramanyam, Vice-President,
HRD of UIT AMC Pvt.Ltd. who admitted in his cross
examination in clear terms that the management had said
during discussion that it would look into the demand of Pension
meaning thereby there was a clear cut assurance to consider the
issue of Pension as and when opportunity arose for it. In this
context, the denial of oral assurance by the management is not
acceptable."
33 There is no question of any oral assurances on behalf of the
Company. Company is a legal entity. Whatever decision taken by the
board of directors can be enforced against the company and not on the
oral assurance given by some of the office bearer thereof. Apart from
that, the respondent agreed and entered into settlement with the
petitioner that they will not raise any demand by which the petitioner
had to bear the financial burden. Inspite of the said settlement, the
respondent raised the issue of the 3rd option. The Apex Court in the
matter of Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad, v. Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. And others. With General Secretary, Barauni
Mohite 30/33
wp1792-07.doc
Telshodhak Mazdoor Union v. Joint Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1801 held that once the financial
settlement is entered into employer and employee then the employees
cannot approach the authorities seeking modification of the same.
Paragraph 9 and 10 of the said authority reads thus:
"9. The settlement does not make any specific mention about
the age of retirement. Clause 19 of the settlement, however,
provides that such terms and conditions of service as are not
changed under this settlement shall remain unchanged and
operative for the period of the settlement. The age of retirement
prescribed by Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders was
undoubtedly a condition of service which was kept intact by
Clause 19 of the settlement. The provisions of the Standing
Orders Act to which we have adverted earlier clearly show that
the purpose of the certified Standing Orders is to define with
sufficient precision the conditions of employment of workman
and to acquaint them with the same. The charter of demands
contained several matters touching the conditions of service
including the one concerning the upward revision of the age of
retirement. After deliberation certain conditions were altered
while in respect of others no change was considered necessary.
In the case of the latter Clause 19 was introduced making it
clear that the conditions of service which have not changed
shall remain unchanged i.e. they will continue as they are. That
means that the demand in respect of revision of the age of
retirement was not acceded to."
"10. By Clause 21 of the settlement extracted earlier the Union
agreed that during the period of the operation of the settlement
they shall not raise any demand which would throw an
additional financial burden on the management, other than
bonus. Of course the proviso to that clause exempted matters
covered under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act from the
application of the said clause. However, Section 9A is not
attracted in the present case. The High Court was, therefore,
right in observing: "when the settlement had been arrived at
between the workmen and the company and which is still in
force, the parties are to remain bound by the terms of the said
Mohite 31/33
wp1792-07.doc
settlement. It is only after the settlement is terminated that the
parties can raise any dispute for fresh adjudication". The
argument that the upward revision of the age of
superannuation will not entail any financial burden cannot be
accepted. The High Court rightly points out: "workmen who
remain in service for a longer period have to be paid a larger
amount by way of salary, bonus and gratuity than workmen
who may newly join in place of retiring men". The High Court
was, therefore, right in concluding that the upward revision of
the age of superannuation would throw an additional financial
burden on the management in violation of Clause 21 of the
settlement. Therefore, during the operation of the settlement it
was not open to the workmen to demand a change in Clause 20
of the certified Standing Orders because any upward revision of
the age of superannuation would come in conflict with Clause
19 and 21 of the settlement. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the conclusion reached by the High Court is unassailable."
34 In the present proceeding, though the petitioner offered the
respondent twice to accept the pension scheme, their members
declined to accept the same in writing. Considering these facts, the
authority cited by the respondent's counsel in the matter of Anoop
Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat
(Haryana) (Supra), Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and Another,
(Supra) and Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and others (Supra)
are not applicable in the fats and circumstances of the present case. In
the case in hand, inspite of settlement between the parties, the
respondent Union raised demand which is contrary to the said
settlement.
35 Apart from that, the Industrial Court in paragraph 17 of the
impugned order considered the facts, which were not pleaded either by
petitioner and or by respondent. Bare reading of the said award shows
that the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court passed award
Mohite 32/33
wp1792-07.doc
on the basis of accepting the respondent's case of oral assurance given
by the petitioner's officers. Hence, I am of the opinion that award
passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal dated
28.2.2007 in Reference No.CGIT-26-2004 is required to be set aside.
Hence, following order is passed:
(A) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which
reads thus:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction of the same or similar
nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling
for the records and proceedings in Reference (CGIT) No.26 of
2004 from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1,
and, after examining the legality and propriety of the impugned
Award (at Exhibit-U hereto), to quash and set aside the same."
B) Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, no order as to costs.
(K.K.TATED, J.)
Mohite 33/33
