The Superintending EngineerVillupuram Ramasamy PadayatchiarElectricity Distribution CircleVillupuram v. The Presiding Officer labour Court Cuddalore2.K.Kasim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 11.7.2007Coram:The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARANW.P.No.17041 of 1997The Superintending EngineerVillupuram Ramasamy PadayatchiarElectricity Distribution CircleVillupuram.. Petitionervs.1.The Presiding Officer labour Court Cuddalore2.K.Kasim .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1strespondent relating to the award dated 29.2.1996 made in Claim PetitionNo.04/93 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegaland without jurisdiction. For Petitioner: Ms.C.A.Shamila, for Mr.V.RadhakrishnanFor Respondents : No Appearance, for R2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Cetiorari calling for therecords of the 1st respondent relating to the award dated 29.2.1996 made inClaim Petition No.04/93 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash thesame as illegal and without jurisdiction. 2.This writ petition has been filed by the Superintending Engineer,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram to quash the order of the 1strespondent Labour court, insofar as it relates to claim petitionNo.4/1993, by which the Labour Court awarded a sum of Rs.13,405.50 towardsspecial contribution to the 2nd respondent herein.3.The 2nd respondent herein was employed as a foreman with the Boardand he retired from service on 31.1.1982 on superannuation. He receivedall the benefits under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF).Thereafter he made a claim before the 1st respondent under Sec.33(c)(2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs.13,495.50 together withinterest at 6% per annum totalling a sum of Rs.22,403/- as specialcontribution payable to him under Regulation 37 of the Tamil NaduElectricity Board Employees CPF Regulation.4.The Board resisted the claim petition on the ground that the 2ndrespondent suffered punishment while in service and he was reverted fromthe post of Wireman to the post of Assistant Wireman for a period of oneyear on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.Therefore his service was not good, efficient and faithful for the purposeof grant of special contribution under Regulation 37. A batch of similarclaim petitions numbering ten were filed before the Labour court and asthe matter involved was the very same question of payment of specialcontribution, a common order was passed by the labour court on 29.2.1996,in which the 2nd respondent's claim petition was allowed as prayed for.Aggrieved by the same the Board has filed the above writ petition.5.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have alsoperused the documents filed in support of their submissions.6.The learned counsel for the Board submitted that the payment of thespecial contribution to Provident Fund comes within the purview ofRegulation 37 referred above, according to which special contribution canbe given only when the Board is satisfied that the service of the memberhas been good, efficient and faithful. In the absence of a good,efficient and faithful service which is a mandatory condition, no specialcontribution is payable to the member of service. As the 2nd respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suffered punishment in a disciplinary proceeding initiated and wasreverted to the post of Assistant Wireman for a period of one year fromthe post of Wireman, his service was not good, faithful and efficient andtherefore he is ineligible to claim the amount under Regulation 37. Thelearned counsel further submitted that the issue involved in the presentwrit petition was covered by the decision of the First Bench of this courtdated 18.12.2006 made in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.8193etc./2003. A copy of the order dated 18.12.2006 was also produced beforethis court. The learned counsel further relied on an unreported judgmentof this court dated 21.12.1999 made in a batch of writ petitions (WritPetition No.12082 of 1991 etc.) to contend that the claim petition itselffiled by the 2nd respondent before the Labour court under Sec.33(c)(2) isnot maintainable. 7.I have considered the submissions carefully and I have perused theorder passed by this court on 18.12.2006.8.It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent filed a claim petitionin C.P.No.4/1993 under Sec.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947claiming a total sum of Rs.22,403/- towards special contribution as perregulation 37. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent retired asforeman on 31.1.1982 after having rendered a service of 38 years. Themain objection by the Board before the 1st respondent is that the 2ndrespondent is not entitled to receive the special contribution as hisservice was not good, faithful and efficient which is a mandatorycondition under regulation 37. To arrive at this conclusion the Boardrelied on the punishment suffered by the 2nd respondent by which he wasreverted for one year from the post of Wireman to Assistant Wireman. Thelabour court after going through the Regulation 37, held that noopportunity was given to the 2nd respondent by the Board by issuing a showcause notice to show cause why he should not be granted the specialcontribution under Regulation 37 in view of the punishment suffered byhim. Therefore the labour court held that the 2nd respondent along withother nine claimants are entitled to receive the speial contribution underRegulation 37.9.Regulation 37 deals with the special contribution to Provident Fundand according to which a member of the Board is entitled to specialcontribution calculated in the manner specified in sub-regulation (2) or(3) if the Board is satisfied that the service of the member has beengood, efficient and faithful. It does not explain what is a good,efficient and faithful service. Therefore a wide discretion is given tothe Board in this regard. But this discretion could be exercised by theBoard only at the time when the member leaves the Board and at the time ofpaying the terminal benefits. Therefore at the time of settling theterminal benefits, the Board is duty bound to pay the member the specialcontribution if he/she comes within Regulation 37. If the Board feelsthat a person is not eligible to receive the said amount as his/herservice has not been good, efficient and faithful, the principles ofnatural justice requires that a notice is to be given to such persons to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ show cause why special contribution should not be given to him. Onlythen, the member will come to know that whether he/she comes underRegulation 37 or not. Further denying a member the special contributionas contemplated under Regulation 37 will no doubt result in civilconsequences and therefore as rightly held by the labour court the Boardshould have issued notice to the 2nd respondent if it had decided to denythe special contribution to him. At this juncture, it is not for theBoard to contend that his service has not been good, faithful andefficient when the 2nd respondent had no opportunity to defend him in thelight of the above accusation. Therefore I do not find any infirmity norillegality in the order of the labour court allowing the claim petitionfiled by the 2nd respondent.10.Insofar as the judgment of the First Bench dated 18.12.2006 isconcerned, that was the case of the workmen who are all governed by thePension Rules evolved by the Board, who claimed the special contributionunder the CPF scheme stating that they were eligible for the scheme.Therefore the First Bench held that the workmen of the Board is entitledto double benefits and the scheme are mutually exclusive. Only in thatcontext the First Bench quashed the orders of the labour court grantingthe benefits to the workmen.11.The facts in the present case are entirely different and the 2ndrespondent is not covered under the pension scheme evolved by the scheme.Therefore the reference to the judgment would be of no avail to thepetitioner.12.The other unreported judgment dated 21.12.1999 referred to by thelearned counsel for the petitioner was also mentioned in the judgment ofthe Division Bench dated 18.12.2006. A perusal of the judgment dated21.12.1999 would make it very clear that it is also a case wherein theemployees who were paid pension as applicable to pensionable employeesmade claims for the special contribution under Sec.33(c)((2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act. Only in that context, the learned Judge of thiscourt held that the question whether they would be entitled to specialcontribution or whether the special contribution is not in lieu ofpension, are all matters involving serious disputes which are to beinvestigated by the labour court in a proper reference and the same cannotbe adjudicated under Sec.33(c)(2), exercising the limited powers.13.In the present case, it is not at all in dispute that the 2ndrespondent retired as a foreman on 31.1.1982 as a non-pensionableemployee. Therefore Regulation 37 definitely would apply to the case ofthe 2nd respondent herein, unlike the employees who had filed claimpetition in the two judgments referred to by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, which have been referred to above. Therefore the facts of thepresent case are totally different in sum and substance and the writpetitioner cannot rely on them to assail the award of the 1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.In the result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the sameis dismissed. No costs. sksSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore.2. The Superintending EngineerVillupuram Ramasamy PadayatchiarElectricity Distribution CircleVillupuram.NTK(CO)dcp/7.8 W.P.17041/97.