COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ONGC EMPLOYEES AND ORS. versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN- TEL BHA VAN DEHRADUN AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 23-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ONGC 
EMPLOYEES AND ORS. 
v. 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THROUGH ffS 
CHAIRMAN-TEL BHA VAN DEHRADUN AND ANR. 
MARCH 23, 1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ, B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA, 
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL,. JJ.) 
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959: Section 13( 1) & 32 
Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Conditions of Appoint-
ment and Service) Regulations, 1975: Regulation 3(2). 
Service Law-Pension-Temporary Government employees-
Absorption in a statutory body. Oil and Natural Gas Commission-No 
right to receive pension as a part of conditions of service before 
D absorption-After absorption opting Contributory Provident Fund and 
-'---
availing the benefit. Held not entitled to pension in addition to Provi-
dent Fund-Protection of Section 13( 1) and Regulation 3(2) held 
inapplicable-Section 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Mis-
cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 not attracted. 
E 
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 
1952: Section 12/Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. 
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is in the nature of the substi-
tute for old age pension-Object of the Act explaines. 
F 
The petitioners, employed in temporary capacity with the Oil and 
Natural Gas Commission when it was a Department of the Government 
of India, were subsequently absot'bed in the said Commission when it 
was established as a statutory body under the Oil and Natural Gas 
Commission Act, 1959. The Employees' P,rovident Funds and Miscel-
laneous Provisions Act, 1952 was made applicable to the Commission. 
G 
The petitioners opted for Contributory Provident Fund and availed the 
benefit. 
The petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court claiming the 
benefit of pension in addition to the Provident Fund contending that (i) 
under the relevant Rules governing their service, they were entitled to 
/'-
H pension on their being made permanent and that the right to pension, 
156 
) 
-----;lo-__ 
r 
. .,/ 
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC 
157 
which was part of their service condition, was protected by Section 
13(1) of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act read with Regulation 
3(2) of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Conditions of 
Appointment and Service) Regulations 1975; and (ii) In spite of the 
introduction of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme their right to 
pension was preserved by Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, 
HELD: l. The scheme of C6ntributory Provident Fund, by way of 
retiral benefit, envisaged by the Provident Fund Act, is in the nature of 
a substitute for old age pension because it was felt that in the prevailing 
conditions in India, the institution of a pension scheme could not be 
visualised in the near future. It was not the intention of Parliament that 
Provident Fund benefit envisaged by the said Act would be in .addition 
to pensionary benefits. [16SG-H; 166A] 
2. Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act seeks to protect the wages 
of an employee to whom the scheme framed under the said act applies as 
well as the total quantum of certain specified benefits to which he is 
entitled under the terms of his employment. It prohibits an employer 
from reducing, whether directly or indirectly, the wages of an employee 
to whom the Scheme applies or the total quantum of benefits in the 
nature of old age pension, gratuity, Provident Fund or life insurance to 
which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment 
express or implied. The said section proceeds on the basis that if an 
employee is entitled to any benefit in the nature of old age pension 
under the terms of his employment the said benefit would not be denied 
to him on the application of the Scheme. [166A-C] 
2.1 In the instant case, on the date of application of the Provident 
Fund Scheme to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. the benefit of 
pension was not a part of the terms of employment of the petitioners and 
they were not entitled to receive pension on that date. Consequently, the 
petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of Section 12 of the Provident 
Fund Act. [166D] 
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] l S.C.R. 
111, held inapplicable . 
3. The petitioners were employed on temporary basis at the time 
when the Commission was established as a statutory body under the Oil 
and Natural Gas Commission Act and on that date they were not 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
158 
SUPREM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.