Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs K. Palaniammal on 30 September, 2021
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 16376 of 2021
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Salem Division,
12, Ramakrishna Salai,
Salem – 7. ..Appellant
Vs.
1. K. Palaniammal
2. The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Chennai – 2. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 17541 of 2012.
For Appellant :: Ms.Rajathi for Mr.D. Raghu
*****
JUDGMENT
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 20.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 17541 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
2. One Kariamalai, who joined the service of the Transport
Corporation on 06.05.1981 as a driver was issued with a charge memo on
29.10.2001 for having absented himself from duty unauthorisedly.
Thereafter, on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the appellant
Corporation, he was dismissed from service. Against the order of dismissal,
the said employee had raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court,
Salem in I.D. No. 160 of 2003 and by order dated 17.01.2005, the Labour
Court while agreeing with the punishment imposed, came to the conclusion
that the dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charges and
converted the dismissal into one of discharge and directed the appellant
Corporation to extend all monetary benefits due to the employee within a
period of three months. Thereafter, the said employee died on 11.10.2005.
Thereafter, the wife of the employee, the 1st respondent herein made a
representation to the appellant for sanction of family pension, which was
rejected. As against the same, she preferred W.P. No. 11043 of 2011 for
compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court and the said writ
petition was disposed by order dated 20.06.2011 observing that inasmuch as
the appellant Corporation had not challenged the award of the Labour
Court, the same had become final and directed the appellant to implement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
the award of the Labour Court within eight weeks. Pursuant to the said
order, the appellant Corporation, relying upon a clarification issued by the
Government vide Letter No. 19209/D/2004-11 dated 16.11.2006, passed an
order dated 01.09.2011 stating that as per Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, removal or
discharge from service would enable a person to get some monetary
benefits, but not pension. Aggrieved over the same, the employee’s wife
again knocked the doors of this Court by filing W.P. No. 17541 of 2012
seeking a direction to the appellant Corporation to give compassionate
appointment or grant family pension. The said writ petition was partly
allowed by order dated 20.02.2020 directing the appellant to provide family
pension to the writ petitioner within a period of twelve weeks. Challenging
the same, the present writ appeal has been filed by the Transport
Corporation.
3. According to the appellant, the employee, S. Kariamalai, was a
regular absentee, who had suffered several punishments during his tenure in
service and finally, for absenting himself from duty, after conducting
enquiry, he was dismissed from service. According to the appellant, the
employee had 58 bad past records during his service. Besides, according to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
the appellant, the Labour Court had also upheld the punishment of dismissal
imposed by the Corporation, but the same was modified only to enable the
employee/his legal heirs to get some monetary benefits and the 1 st
respondent herein/wife of the employee, would not be entitled to family
pension as per Rule 21 of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, which is extracted hereunder:
“Rule 21 – Guarantee of Pensionary Benefits
a) The payment of benefits will be guaranteed
by the Pension Trust. Provided further, a member
removed or dismissed from service shall have no claim
over pension / pensionary benefits.
b) The Trustees shall, for the purpose of
providing the pension for the members pursuant to the
Rules, accumulate the contributions in respect of the
members from all the STUs and pay the eligible
pensinioary benefits to the individual members directly
through the respective Corporation.
c) The beneficiary shall furnish a live
certificate every year as directed by the Board of
Trustees.”
4. It is submitted by the Appellant that the learned Single Judge
erred in granting family pension to the writ petitioner, when the employee
had been dismissed from service and the said punishment had also been
upheld by the Labour Court. Therefore, the appellant seeks to set aside the
order under challenge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
5. Heard both parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the husband of the 1st respondent
S. Kariamalai, was dismissed from service, which resulted in I.D.No. 160 of
2003 and by award dated 17.01.2005, the Labour Court had modified the
punishment of dismissal from service into one of discharge and directed the
appellant to extend all the terminal benefits to the workman. As the
workman passed away in the interregnum and the award of the Labour
Court was not complied with, the 1st respondent herein/ wife of the deceased
employee initially approached this Court for implementing the award of the
Labour Court. Eventhough the terminal benefits were received by the wife
of the deceased employee/1st respondent herein, her claim for family
pension was rejected by the appellant citing Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules.
7. A reading of the Rule would make it very clear that there can
be cessation of employer– employee relationship on more than two grounds
and it can be due to non-employment, compulsory retirement, removal from
service, discharge from service and dismissal from service and as per Rule
21 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees' Pension Fund
Rules, an employee who has been discharged of his duties on the ground of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
removal or dismissal from service alone would not be entitled to claim
pension or pensionary benefits and the word “discharge” is absent in the
said Rule. The dismissal can only be by way of punishment, whereas
discharge may or may not be by way of punishment. Dismissal is a straight
expulsion and discharge may be a golden handshake cessation.
8. The intention of the Labour Court, as could be seen from the
award, at paragraph No.11, is extracted hereunder:
“11/ Kothf. kDjhuUf;F tH';fg;gl;l gzpePff
;
jz;lid epahakhdJ vd;W Kot[ bra;J. dismissal
jz;lidia discharge Mf khw;wp. discharge K:yk;
fpilf;ff;Toa epjpg;gyd;fis fzf;fpl;L. ,j;jPht
; k;
fpilf;fg;bgw;W K:d;W khj';fSf;Fs; tH';fntz;Lk;
vd;W vjph;kDjhuUf;F cj;jputpl;L jPh;tk;
gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ ,ju gupfhu';fis bghWj;J kD
js;Sgo bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ bryt[jb
; jhif ,y;iy/@
9. The above extract would make it very clear that the employee
must be extended the pensionary benefits. Unfortunately, he is no more.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with as
he had rightly interfered with the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2011
and directed the appellant Corporation to extend family pension and other
monetary benefits to the writ petitioner/1st respondent herein. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
request of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment was denied.
We find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. The writ
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
10. The appellant Corporation is given four months time to extend
pensionary benefits due to the employee from the date of
retirement/discharge till his death and family pension benefits, on or from
the date of employee's demise, to the 1st respondent/wife of the deceased
employee.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 30.09.2021
To
The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Employees Pension Fund Trust,
Chennai -2.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7\8
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
W.A. No. 2512 of 2021
30.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8\8
