SIEMENS LTD.MUMBAI Vs. V.VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court declaring that they have committed an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and directing them to pay to the respondent workmen Rs. 188/ - per month, from the date they attain the age of sixty years, as pension.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : - A settlement was arrived at between the Union representing the petitioner 's workmen and the petitioners on 4th November, 1992. Under this settlement, a superannuation scheme providing for pension to be paid to the employees was formulated and the scheme came into effect from 1st November, 1992. The respondents resigned from service on the basis of an early voluntary retirement scheme. Under this scheme, the workmen were allowed to resign from service prior to attaining the age of superannuation which is sixty years. Certain amount were payable to the workmen under the scheme. These amounts, according to the respondent, were the amounts payable to them upto the age of superannuation and they were paid on monthly instalments. There is no dispute that the petitioners did in fact pay these amounts to the respondent workmen. However, according to the respondent workmen, they were entitled to an additional amount of Rs.188/ - even beyond the age of sixty years as a monthly pension. A Complaint was filed by the respondents under Section 28 read with Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioners have discriminated between those who had superannuated at the age of sixty years and those who had retired under the early retirement scheme. They claimed amounts under contributory pension scheme which was introduced in view of the settlement entered into between the petitioners and the Union with effect from 1st October, 1992. According to the respondents, since they had voluntarily retired, it amounted to superannuation in view of Clause 16 of the Rules and Regulations of the Siemens Employees Superannuation Fund.

(3.) CLAUSE 16 of the Rules and Regulations of Siemens Employees Superannuation Fund reads as under : - "16. Every employee shall superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years. An employee, may, with the consent of the Company resign from service of the Company before attaining the age of 60 years, if there be no cause existing at that justifying a dismissal." All employees who were confirmed in service of the Company and who were on the rolls of the Company as on 1st October, 1997 could join the Fund with effect from 1st October, 1992. All other employees who were confirmed in the service after 1st October, 1992, shall join the Fund from the first day of the month. Those employees who are confirmed from the date other than the first day of the month, shall join the Scheme from the first day of following month. There is no dispute that the respondent workmen were members of the pension scheme having joined from 1st October, 1992 when the scheme came into force. However, the question is whether Clause 16 would permit an employee who voluntarily resigned from service albeit with mutual understanding between him and employer, would amount to superannuation. Clause 16 of the Scheme in fact makes it clear that every employee shall superannuate at the age of 60 years. Therefore, all employees who ceased to be in employment before the age of 60 years do not superannuate. Clause 16 differentiate between those employees who are superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years and those employees who may resign from service of the Company with the consent of the Company before attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, in my opinion, superannuation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement or resignation with consent of the petitioner.