S N GHOSH Vs. SIEMENS INDIA LTD

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 company's flat which was allotted to him as a prerequisite of his service condition is the short question that arise 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, 1986, had obtained from its landlord, one U. T. Daswani. The defendant was permitted to reside in the said flat as a condition of his service. The rent in 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 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 company's flat. Reliance is placed by Mr. Tulzapurkar on Articles 10 of the retirement Benefits Scheme for Management Grade Offices of the defendant company. It provides as under : "withdrawal of benefits payable under the Retirement Benefits Scheme - Notwithstanding any other provisions of this scheme, the benefits paid under this scheme will be withdrawn if the beneficiary jeopardizes or interferes with the essential interests of the company by committiong any of the following acts :

(3.) IT is pointed out by Mr. Tulzapurkar by making a reference to the correspondence which caused after the retirement and before filling of the suit that the company had given notice as required under the above Article. The plaintiff was given adequate opportunity and the company had thereafter proceeded to withdraw the benefits due to the plaintiff under the Scheme. According to] Mr. Tulzapurkar, the plaintiff is guilty of theft or fraud in respect of the properties of the company, and is, therefore, liable under sub-clause (b) of Article 10. The plaintiff has also committed an act which is punishable under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, a prosecution has been duly launched by the company against the plaintiff under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 630 of the Companies Act and the same is pending. Hence, the plaintiff is liable also under clause (c) of the said Article. According to Mr. Tulzapurkar, the claim set up by the plaintiff in respect of the company's flat is belated, dishonest and mala fide. He submitted that the plaintiff in the suite would at best be entitled to a money decree. It is nowhere suggested that the company is not good for the money in the event a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff. What the plaintiff is seeking by the present notice of motion is the reliefs claimed in the suit. The plaintiff in view of his conduct of withholding the company's flat by raising dishonest and false pleas is not entitled to any discretionary relief claimed in the notice of motion. Reliance was placed on an unreported judgment in the case of Kareparambil Theyyan lakshmanan v. Air India (Writ Petition No. 2101 of 1984), decided by my learned brother pendse, J. , on the 10th January, 1986, wherein the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was refused in favour of an employee who was placed in circumstances similar to the one arising in the present suit.