AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE Vs. VALJIBHAI SHANKARBHAI MAHERIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service has challenged the award dtd. 28/9/2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 403 of 2012.

(2.) Facts in brief would indicate that the respondent joined service of the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS) as a daily wage conductor on 1/9/1976 and was made permanent with effect from 11/11/1981. He was a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service by circular no. 102 dtd. 31/3/1987 adopted the policy of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and resolved to introduce a pension scheme for its employees. The circular invited options from its employees for continuing with Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme or opting for pension. The respondent was a member of the CPF scheme. On he applying for voluntary retirement on 5/11/2012, the same was granted with effect from 1/3/2013. CPF amount of Rs.9,08,000.00 was in his balance. The respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Aggrieved by the inaction of the petitioner of not responding to his application dtd. 2/1/2012 for joining pension scheme, the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal. The case of the respondent was that he having voluntarily retired from service which was accepted from 1/3/2013 he was entitled to pension in accordance with Circular No. 102 dtd. 31/3/1987. The Tribunal after considering the master circular dtd. 31/3/1987 which was produced at Ex. 13, and the subsequent circulars at Exs. 21 to 23, the Tribunal held that in accordance with the master circular, it was only the CPF beneficiaries who had to give an undertaking of continuing under the CPF. Therefore, the fact that the respondent had not given such an undertaking automatically brought him over to the pension scheme. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the reference and directed the AMTS to treat the respondent as eligible for pension and directed the petitioner to pay pension accordingly.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that reading the master circular dtd. 31/3/1987 together with the circulars dtd. 9/3/1993 and 16/1/1996, it was evident that unless an option for expressly coming over to the pension scheme was exercised, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of pension scheme.