The Central Railway Employees v. Jayashree R. Darne

Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b. M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. Sunil Kharwal a/w. Mr. Ramur Shelchawat for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:

The Writ Petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court, Mumbai in the Application (IDA) Nos.239 to 315 of 2004 and 324 to 335 of 2005 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A common order has been passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai on 27th April, 2009 which has been impugned in this Writ Petition.

The grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the Labour Court has not taken into account the amendment to the Central Railway Employees’ Co-operative Bank Limited Staff : 2 : Provident Fund Rules, which was effected by the petitioners by the Resolution passed in a General Body Meeting on 6th June, 1979. According to the petitioners, due to the amendment, the special contribution to the Provident Fund which was payable under Rule 1229 was not to be paid if the member was eligible for Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Similar applications have been filed earlier by various other employees before the Labour Court, Mumbai. The Labour Court upheld the contention of the employees and granted them relief. Being aggrieved by that decision, the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring a Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge rejected the Petition. A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. The Division Bench of this Court (to which I was a party) in Letters Patent Appeal No.6 of 2000 upheld the order of the Labour Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioners thereafter admittedly had sought a review of the order passed by the Division Bench. However the attempt was unsuccessful and their : 3 : Civil Application was dismissed. The order of the Division Bench therefore still holds the field.

The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the Division Bench was not informed that Rule 1229 had been amended and that the employees were not entitled to seek a third benefit under the said Rule. He submits that the amendment to the said Rule was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, inadvertently. According to the learned Advocate, therefore, the Labour Court ought to have considered this fact and rejected the applications filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Labour Court while dismissing the contentions raised by the petitioners has observed that the Minutes of the Meeting in which a Resolution was allegedly passed amending the Rules were not proved and, therefore, could not be accepted. The Resolution itself was not proved. The Labour Court, in these circumstances, allowed the applications. : 4 :

Bye-law 76 of the aforesaid “Central Railway Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society Limited Staff Provident Fund Rules” reads as follows :-

76. No bye-law can altered or cancelled, nor can any new bye-law be entered except by General Meeting with, 2/3rds majority, nor can any alteration, cancellation or enactment of a bye-law be operative, except with the approval of the Registrar, and until the same has been registered under Section 13 of the Act.

No documents were placed on record by the petitioners to indicate that Rule 76 had been followed and, therefore, in my opinion, the Labour Court has rightly allowed the claims of the respondents-workmen by following the judgment of the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.6 of