SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER METTUR ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS both the Writ Appeals have been preferred by the same appellant-Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam (hereinafter referred to as 'the Electricity Board') against the common order dated 26. 7. 1999 in W. P. Nos. 12118 and 12119 of 1999, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondents (second respondent-workmen) retired from the services of the Electricity Board on 30. 6. 1992 (Thiru. D. Devappan in W. A. No. 2367 of 2000) and on 30. 6. 1994 (Thiru. J. Albert John in W. A. No. 2368 of 2000 ). After their retirement, they were paid the following retirement benefits: (i) Monthly pension; (ii) Commutation of pension; (iii) General Provident Fund; (iv) Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity; (v) Benefit under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Family Benefits Fund Rules, 1974; (vi) Benefit under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Family Benefits Fund Subsidiary Scheme, 1986 and (vii) Benefit under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Special Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Scheme.

(3.) AFTER receiving the entire retirement benefits, the second respondent-workmen (in both the Writ Appeals), have preferred respective Claim Petitions under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Salem praying for commutation of money value of the benefits of Special Contribution they have made towards the Provident Fund. Such a prayer was made on the ground that they have put in more than 30 years of service and as per Regulation 37 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Contributory Provident Fund Regulations, they are entitled to Special Contribution at the rate of 15 days of salary per year of service. Similar claims were made by some other employees of the Electricity Board. Some of such cases having been allowed by the Labour Court, the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board preferred different Writ Petitions. The present two Writ Petitions along with two other Writ Petitions which are preferred by the appellant-Electricity Board, were dismissed on the ground of delay, as it was observed that the Writ Petitions were preferred after two years of the award of the Labour Court.