LexBHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION EX-EMPLOYEES A ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. DECEMBER 15, 1994 B [K. RAMASWAMY ANDN. VENKETACHALA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 21 Pension-Corporation-Employees-Disparity in pension-Claim for increased pension after merger of DA with basic pay-Rejection by Indus- C trial Tribunal-Compromise between parties-Under compromise terms employees retiring prior to 1.1.89 were entitled to higher compensation than those retiring afterwards-Matter attaining finality between parties- Held disparity in pension payable to employees of same Corporation retiring in different regions was on account of Industrial adjudication- D Articles 14 and 21 held not violative. The appellant-Association raised certain disputes including the dispute relating to increase of pension by merging DA with basic salary. The Industrial Tribunal allowed other demands but rejected the pension claim. The appellant-Association as well as the respondent- E Corporation filed writ Petitions in the High Court but a compromise was reached between the parties where under the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the claim for the increase in pension was allowed to become final and binding between the parties. Subsequently, the appellant'-Association made an unsuccessful attempt to re-open the p consent order by seeking a declaration from the High Court that the terms of the consent do not bind the appellant-Association. Thereafter, the appellant-Association filed another petition in this Court which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Accordingly, a writ Petition was filed in the High Court claiming that the former employees of the respondent-Corporation who G retired prior to 1.1.1989 (clerical cadre) employed in the Bombay region were entitled to the parity in payment of pension with the employees who retired on that date in other regions of the Corporation and the non-payment thereof was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. H 637 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R A The High Court dismissed the petition against which an appeal was B c D E F -preferred in this Court Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: Having consented to the adjudication made by the Tribunal and having allowed the industrial award to become final, it is not open to the appellants to go behind the award and claim pension on parity with others on the anvil of Articles 14 and 21. That apart the difference of payment of the pension had arisen on account of the revision of the wages etc. Only in the industrial adjudication and demands by the Union on behalf of the workmen. The discrimination was due to the judicial determination and not due to the acts of the respondents. It is no longer, therefore, open to the workmen to contend that they are entitled to parity in the payment of pension with the employees in the other regions. The retired employees in other regions are getting higher pension than the retired employees from Bombay region but it is only due to judicial adjudication. Considered in the said perspective and in view of the facts and circumstances, the High Court was well justified in refusing to grant relief claimed by the appellant. [641 D to F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9648 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.92 of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.3571of1989. P.S. Poti, E.M.S. Anam, Sanjay Kunur and R.N. Keshwani for the Appellants. V.C. Mahaian and Santosh Hegde, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Kitty Kumaramanglam, Anil Katiyar, Wasim Qadri, Parijat Sinha, B.D. Ahmed and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G Leave Granted. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.681/90, dated 12.9.91. The appellants filed writ petition No. 3571/89 seeking that the former employees of the respondent-Corporation who retired prior to 1.1.89 H (Clerical cadre employed in the Bombay region are entitled to the parity in BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. v. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. 639 payment of pension with the employees who retired on that date in other A regions of the respondent-Corporation and the non-payment thereof is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. To understand the contention, it i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.