Madras High Court
S.Anbalagan vs The Senior Deputy Manager on 4 November, 2024
Author: D. Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.3172 of 2024
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
W.A.No.3172 of 2024
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
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(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.
2. The 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.
3. The 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and we have gone through
the materials on record.
5. Admittedly, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
6. According 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
3. On 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.
4. Having 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. It 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.
8. It 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. It 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.
10. The 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[gg
; o 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;/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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/
11. It 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Accordingly, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mst
04.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
