ASHOK LEYLAND EMPLOYEES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 (Presidential Ordinance No. 2 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the impugned ordinance and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the impugned pension scheme. Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment Act, 1996, Central Act, 25 of 1996 hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act and President's assent was also accorded to the same on August 16, 1996. Orders have been passed by this Court to suitably amend the references in the nature of relief sought so as to substitute the name of the Act in places where the name of the impugned Ordinance, without driving the various petitioners to the necessity of filing formally individual petitions seeking for such amendment and thereupon the challenge stood modified as one directed against the Central Act 25 of 1996 and the impugned pension scheme, thereunder. These writ petitions except one or two have been invariably filed by various workers' unions pertaining to different Industrial Establishments. W.P. No. 233 of 1996 has been filed by a Management, a Beedi Manufacturer for a writ of Declaration declaring clause 3 of the Central Ordinance 13 of 1995, providing for the transfer of Employees' contribution of 8.33% of the Employees Pay in the Provident Fund Account shall be remitted by the employer to the Employees' Pension Fund Scheme, 1995, as unreasonable and arbitrary. W.P. No. 6644 of 1996 has been filed by about 433 employees, joining together, of M/s. Rane Power Steering Limited, Madras, out of whom 40 are said to be governed under a separate Provident Fund Scheme managed by a Trust with effect from April 1, 1989, challenging the provisions of the Act and the Scheme, as in the other cases and also for a declaration that the then Employer M/s. Rane Power Steering Ltd. Madras are entitled to be exempted under Section 17(1 -C) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the 'main Act' from the operation of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1996. Writ Petitions with similar claim of relief that one or other of the Employers also are exempt from the also been filed by some of the other Employees Union, while challenging the constitutional validity of the Act and the pension scheme thereunder.

(2.) THOUGH several writ petitions have been filed with varying emphasis on different aspects for the problems and different aspects of the problems and different counsel have appeared to such petitioners, Ms. R. Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 17208 and 17209 of 1995 etc. alone made detailed submissions and the other learned counsel appearing merely stated that they adopt in all respects, the submission of Ms. R. Vaigai, without any further addition or supplement therefor. It would be appropriate as also useful to advert to the averments in W.P. Nos. 17208 and 17209 of 1995, in order to appreciate the grievances of the various petitioners. W.P. No. 17208 of 1995 has been filed by the Ashok Leyland Employees' Union, represented by its General Secretary and another employee who is said to be a Trustee of the Ashok Leyland Employees' Provident Fund, seeking for a writ of declaration that the impugned ordinance and the impugned pension scheme are illegal and un -constitutional. Similarly, the very petitioners have filed W.P. No. 17209 of 1995 for a writ of declaration that the petitioners and their employer Ashok Leyland Limited, Madras are entitled to be exempted under Section 17(1 -C) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from the operation of the impugned pension scheme. The petitioners claim that the petitioners -union represents about 9000 employees working in the Ashok Leyland Ltd., said to be a highly profitable industry at Madras, that being an old establishment the employees have tried to evolve various beneficial schemes for the workmen by is bilateral negotiations with the Management, that they had exemption granted under Section17 of the main Act as early as from November 1, 1952 since they had a better provident fund scheme in the establishment than under the statute with better and greater benefits and that after negotiations with the management the petitioners have arrived at a settlement under Section18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on May 24, 1995 under which workmen who superannuated from April 1, 1994 onwards became entitled to pension from the pension fund created jointly by the workers and the management. It is also the claim of the petitioners that as on date, the petitioners -workmen have three retrial benefits viz., gratuity, provident fund and pension each supplementing the other which has been said to be the longstanding demand of the working class.While making reference to the main Act and the introduction of the Family tension Scheme by the amendment introduced in 1971, it is stated that the rate of pension thereunder was very poor with no provision for payment of such pension to the worker himself and that due to alleged improper and lower distribution of Family Pension between 1971 -1995, huge accumulation to the tune of Rs. 8, 500 crores resulted in the Family Pension Fund. That apart, it is claimed that the Family Pension Scheme itself was quite confiscatory of the retrial benefits of the employees the same not being a proper match for the contribution and the impugned scheme is said to be further drastic, unfair and unjust. As for the employees who joined service before 1971 and who had the option to join or not, the Family Pension Scheme introduced in 1971, 1380 members of the petitioner union are said to be not members of the same. The provisions of the impugned ordinance and the scheme thereunder are said to he unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair and also violative of Articles 14, 21, 39(a), 39(e), 41 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India. Information in the form of figures are also furnished to show that the interest earned on accumulation of deposits alone far exceeds the benefits ultimately granted. A comparative chart showing the benefits under the Company's pension scheme and the impugned scheme is also given to high -light the grievances of the employees and justify their claim for exemption.The promulgation of the Ordinance, in the is teeth of the pendency of the Bill before Parliament is said to be not bona fide and unwarranted, particularly when the matter was said to be the subject matter of deliberations by the Parliamentarians and Tripartite Conference consisting of representatives of the Central Trade Unions, employees and the Government. The petitioner -Union also appears to have been making representations separately vindicating the cause of their workers.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit reiterating the stand taken in their affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and disclosing further details in support of their attempt to demonstrate that the impugned scheme is not to the benefit of the workmen and to contend that the same is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is claimed for the petitioners that any rational and fair scheme ought to have classified the employees and the rates of pension on the basis of the quantum of contribution to an employee's credit and his number of years of service. The impugned scheme is not only said to be unreasonable but also expropriatary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.