LexRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus PRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 7 S.C.R. 1139 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] EMPLOYEES FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971: Pension Scheme - Employee not exercising option under the Scheme - Held: Notification dated 9.4.1971 issued by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was circulated by A B c the employer-Corporation by letter dated 30. 7. 1971 - Resultantly, several employees opted for the Scheme and a D few of them, including the deceased, did not opt for the same - There is no reason to assume that the employees were unaware of the Scheme and the Notifications - Further, the wife of the deceased had received the entire Provident Fund amount - The dispute raised by the Employees' Union after nine years is absolutely untenable - Employees Provident E Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1952 - Labour Laws. An employee of the appellant-Corporation recruited in 1962 died in 1982 while in service. He had not exercised the option under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and, therefore, his wife accepted F the Contributory Provident Fund and did not raise any claim for family pension. However, after nine years, the respondent-Union took up the claim of the wife of the deceased-employee for family pension and ultimately the G Industrial Tribunal allowed the same holding that the employee was not informed of his right to exercise the option under the Scheme. The writ petition of the Corporation before the Single Judge and its appeal 1139 H 1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A before the Division Bench of the High Court remained unsuccessful. In the instant appeal filed by the Corporation, the question for consideration before the Court was : whether the wife of a deceased-employee was entitled to B get family pension under the Employees Family-Pension Scheme, 1971 on the failure of the employee to exercise his option under the Scheme, especially when the claimant had already received the entire Provident Fund c amount from the Fund maintained by the employer. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A reading of the Notification dated 9.4.1971 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner along with the communication letter dated D 30.7.1971 issued by the appellant-Corporation, makes it evident that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the appellant-Corporation had informed all the departments/unions, as well as the employees working under the Corporation to exercise their necessary option E if they wanted to get the benefit of the Family Pension. Facts would indicate that several employees at that time had opted and few of them did not opt for that, since they were interested to get provident fund under the CPF Scheme and not the family pension under the Scheme, F after the death of the employee. There is no reason to assume that the employees were unaware of the notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the Corporation. Facts would also indicate that the wife of the deceased-employee has G already received the entire provident fund amount since the employee had not opted under the Scheme. However, after nine years, respondent Union is raising a dispute which is absolutely untenable. [Para 14) [1146-G-H; 1147- A-C] H 1.2 The Tribunal as well as the Single Judge and the RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS. CORP v. PRESIDENT, 1141 RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION Division Bench of the High Court have committed a A grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily calls for interference. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. [Para B 14-15] [1147-C-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2011 of the C High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 960 of 2011 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2099 of 1999. S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellant. B. Ramana Murthy for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether the widow of an employee is entitled to get family pension under th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.