V.RAVEENDRAN Vs. SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an issue concerning the entitlement of the Writ Petitioner to pensionary benefits. He is said to have worked and retired from the 4th respondent Corporation, a moribund organization on the verge of extinction, as has been submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the 4th respondent Corporation.

(2.) SHORN of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner initially joined in the service of the 4th respondent Corporation on 01.05.1983 and later on 29.10.1999, retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation. Soon thereafter, he kept on representing to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the authorities of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, to process his application and sanction him the pensionary benefits.

(3.) IN the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the initial rejection on the part of the respondent authorities was on flimsy technical grounds. On the issue of non - completion of 10 years, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 2 (e) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, which deals with "continuous service". The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph 16A of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Eventually, he has contended that if there is any default in payment of the contribution, it shall be made good by the employer and the respondent authorities cannot take recourse to, much less, insist on, the petitioner to pay the said amount which is allegedly due to the Provident Fund Organization, so that the petitioner would be entitled to the pensionary benefit.