SHAILENDRANATH KARTIKCHANDRA GHOSH Vs. SIEMENS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a Company is justified in withholding the retirement benefits of its ex-employee on the ground that the employee is withholding the possession of the Companys flat which was allotted to him as a per requisite of his service condition is the short question that arises for determination in the present Notice of Motion.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who was in the employment of the defendants, retired with effect from 11th February, 1987. It is undisputed that the plaintiff is governed by the retirement benefits scheme for the management grade officers. During the tenure of his service, the plaintiff was allotted a flat which the Company under a lease agreement dated 26th July, 1968 had obtained from its landlord one U. T. Daswani. The defendant was permitted to reside in the said flat as condition of his service. The rent is respect of the said flat was paid by the Company to the said Daswani. After the plaintiff retired, correspondence ensued wherein the Company demanded back the possession of the flat and the plaintiff contended that it was he who had obtained the said flat on lease from the landlord. According to the plaintiff, it was only for obtaining certain tax benefits that the lease agreement was entered into between the Company and the landlord and it was specifically agreed that on his retirement the lease would be transferred in his favour. It is true that this contention was taken by the plaintiff for the first time in the correspondence that ensued after his retirement. The question, however, is whether the Company would be justified in withholding the retirement benefits of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is withholding the possession of the Companys flat. Reliance is placed by Mr. Tulzapurkar on Article 10 of the Retirement Benefits Scheme for Management Grade Officers of the defendant Company. It provides as under :--

(3.) IN my judgment, it would not be open to a Company to confuse the issue of their claim to receive back the possession of the Companys flat with the claim of the employee to receive retirement benefits. In case the plaintiff is unlawfully holding the possession of the Companys flat, it is open to the Company to resort to proceedings for taking back the possession which the Company has done. In case the plaintiff is found guilty of committing offence he will be punished. Pending such proceedings, in my view, it would not be open or just for the Company to withhold the retirement benefits from its ex-employee. Whether the action on the part of the Company in withdrawing the retirement benefits in terms of Article 10 of the Retirement Benefits Scheme of the Company is an issue which will undoubtedly arise in the suit. Whether the case of the plaintiff that the flat was taken on lease by him but was merely shown as having been taken by the Company for the purpose of providing tax benefits to the plaintiff would also be an issue which would arise in the suit. Pending the decision in the said issues, it would be unjust to deprive the plaintiff of his pensionary benefits as the entire livelihood of the plaintiff would depend upon it.