UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ABHA RANI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHISHIR

JUDGEMENT

(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 33-C(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.