Court No. - 56
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17543 of 1997 Petitioner :- U.P. S.E.B.
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court Iii Kanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.N. Dubey
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.12.1996 passed in Misc. Case No. 55 of 1995 passed by Prescribed Officer Labour Court No. 3, Kanpur, U.P. and order dated 20the March, 1997 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.
By means of impugned orders the petitioner was directed to compute the retirement benefit and to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,563/- along with interest to the respondent no.2.
Heard Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Komal Mehrotra and the respondent's counsel.
The facts of the case, the respondent no.2, was employee of the petitioner co-operation, who by order No. SR/5/2927 dated 28.12.1993 was to retire on 31.07.1994. On retirement the respondent no.2, became entitled for its retirement benefit and claim its pension and gratuity as provided under U.P. Retirement Benefit Rule 1961 and New Family Pension Scheme 1965. The petitioner did not compute the gratuity and pension in spite of various reminders. The Respondent No.2, filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of his retirement benefit for which he was entitled to receive from the petitioner.
The petitioner neither filed any reply nor any document before the Court below. The Labour Court after due consideration of material on record directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.01,24,436.86/-. It has been stated by the petitioner that the respondent no.2, in spite of being retired on 31st July, 1994 was not vacating the quarter which was allotted him and he was residing during his services and therefore, did not compute his pension and gratuity amount. The Respondent No.2, did not produce no dues certificate from various department of the petitioner, therefore, not entitle for any retirement benefit.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties, in view of U.P.
Retirement Benefit Rule 1961 and New Family Pension Scheme 1965, every retired employee is entitled to get a pension or gratuity after his or her retirement.
The employee has a right to receive his or her pension which has become a vested right upon retirement.
The employee (Retd.) cannot be harass by the employer that the pension/gratuity amount will not be computed in absence of no dues certificate, in other words it is a duty cast upon the employer to collect no dues certificate and the employee (Retd.) cannot be blame for inaction of the management for not submitting no dues certificate. The petitioner was not justified in not computing the amount of Pension and Gratuity on the alleged ground that the Respondent no.2, was not vacating the quarter in which he was residing during his services.
High Court, Allahabad in the case of Harlok Yadav Vs. Allahabad Bank and others (1994 (69) FLR 533 Alld.) this Hon'ble Court has held that-
"the right of a person to get retirement benefits in accordance with the Rules does not depend on that person's vacating the premises of the employer occupied by him."
To receive pension and gratuity is an existing right for the enforcement of which can be taken to proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
In view of the settled position of law, the facts and circumstances stated above the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is wholly justified.
There is no merit in the writ petition which deserve to be dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Rahul.