JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
2. The husband of the respondent No. 2, namely late Shri Shishir Kumar Moitra was employed in British India Corporation as general clerk on 24th April, 1944. In the year 1947 Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration (hereinafter referred to as the 'KESA') was constituted and the services of the employee concerned were merged in the said undertaking. On 1st April, 1959 U.P. State Electricity Board was constituted and the employees of KESA were absorbed as employees of U.P. State Electricity Board. The husband of the respondent No. 2 expired on 30th May, 1975 when he was working in the employment of the U.P. State Electricity Board. In respect of the employees of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Undertaking by means of the Board's order dated 19th September, 1984, the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and U.P. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 were made applicable. By means of the subsequent board's order dated 1st May, 1966 the provision of aforesaid rules were made applicable in respect of the employees, who had expired subsequent to the year 1972. In accordance with the aforesaid rules as applied under the board's order referred to above, the respondent No. 2 moved an application in the year 1988 for being granted family pension in accordance with rules referred to above. Since claim of the applicant was not considered by the respondents, she was forced to file an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Labour Court, Kanpur. The said dispute was registered as Misc. Case No. 120 of 1994. The presiding Officer by means of the order dated 26th May, 1995 computed a sum of Rs. 94,297/- as payable to the respondent No. 2 under the aforesaid U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and U.P. Family Pension shceme, 1965. By means of the aforesaid order, it was further directed that the amount already paid to the workman towards the contribution of the employers towards provident fund may be adjusted against the amount so determined. Against the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, employers have preferred the present writ petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since they had disputed the right of the respondent No. 2. to claim the benefits of the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and U.P. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965. the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act and the workman should have been asked to seek settlement of her dispute by regular reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the proceedings initiated before the Labour Court are without jurisdiction. It is further contended that since the workman had not opted for the benefits of the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and U.P. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965, the Claim as set up by the respondent No. 2 was misconceived and was liable to be rejected.
4. Lastly it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the workman had not made payment of the contribution made by the employers towards the provident fund, the benefits of the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and U.P. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 could have been granted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court was not justified in allowing the application of the respondent No. 2. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are totally misconceived. It is not in dispute that the provisions of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and that of U.P. New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 were made applicable to the employees of the Board for the first time vide Board's order dated 19th September, 1984 and in respect of the employees who had expired subsequent to year 1972, the benefits of the. said rules were extended by the subsequent board's order dated 1st May, 1966. The husband of the respondent No. 2 expired in the year 1975. In such circumstances, question of the workman exercising any option does not arise under the rules referred to above. Even otherwise, in the board's order dated 19th September, 1984, which has been enclosed as Annexure 1 A to the affidavit dated 24th May, 2004 filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has specifically been stated in paragraph 1 of the said order, as follows:
"The phrase Regular employee' occurring in the first para of the above mentioned O.M. dated 17.2.1982 includes taken over ex-licensee/KESA employees who already stand absorbed in the Board on Boards standard term and conditions of service on or before the date of issue of the said O.M. i.e. 17th February, 1982. Such employees are, therefore, not required to submit any option for being allowed benefits admissible under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981 and New Family Pension Scheme, 1965."
5. In view of the aforesaid clause of the board's order, there is absolutely no basis for the learned counsel for the petitioner to assert that the workman was not opted for the benefits of the retirement rules or the family pension scheme. In view of the aforesaid, it is established beyond doubt that the applicant was entitled to computation of benefits as admissible under the aforesaid rules referred to above. There is absolutely no bona fide dispute with regard to the applicability and the right of the respondent No. 2 to claim the benefits of the aforesaid retirement rules and family pension scheme. Consequently it cannot be said that the application as filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 33C(2) was not maintainable. It reads as fellows:
" Where any workman is entitled to receive from the employer any money or any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money and if any question arises as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which such benefit should be computed, then the question may, subject to any rules that may be made under the Act, be decided by such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government [within a period not exceeding three months]:
[provided that where the presiding officer of a Labour Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as he may think fit.]
6. It is thus, settled that for computation of the money payable to the workman, it is not necessary that the amount should be admitted by the employers. The requirement of Section 33-C(2) is only to the extent that the benefits claimed by the workman in capable of being computed in terms of money. As already noticed above, there was no bona fide dispute before the Court about the entitlement of the workman to the befits of the provisions of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981 and New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 and as such the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to compute the said benefits in terms of the money on the application filed by the workman. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1998 (2) L.L.J. 637 (Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare and Ors.). This case has absolutely no application in the facts of the case inasmuch as in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically noticed that the status of the employment of the workman itself was in dispute. Similarly the other judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2002 (95) FLR 749 (S.A. Shaikh v. Union of India and Ors.) also has no application in the facts of the case inasmuch in the present case the applicant had submitted the requisite form for grant of retiral benefits under the pension scheme in the year 1988 i.e. after a gap of only two years from the date of issue of the Board's order in respect of the employees, who had expired subsequent to the year 1972. There is no inordinate delay on the part of the respondent No. 2 in filing of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Further reliance has been made upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 (1) L.L.J. 395 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr.), which is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case inasmuch as the employers have recognized the right of the petitioner under the family pension, who had expired prior to the year 1972. The only issue remained for determination before the Labour Court was with regard to the computation the money so payable.
7. The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is based on misreading of the order of the Labour Court itself inasmuch as in paragraph 10 of the order of the Labour Court, it has specifically been mentioned that any money paid towards contribution of the employers to the provident fund be adjusted while making payment of the amount as calculated under the order of the Labour Court and refund of the contribution was not a condition precedent for grant of family pension and other benefits. Thus, contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are totally misconceived and are hereby rejected.
8. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order granted in favour of the petitioner dated 6th Septebmer, 1995 is hereby discharged. No order as to costs.