B. SESHAPHANI RAO AND OTHERS Vs. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 16.11.2015, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyhderabad in M.P.No.292 of 2003, rejecting the claim made by the petitioners in terms of Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ).

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that they were employed by the respondents-Corporation in the years 1976 to 1978 and after the prolonged litigation by virtue of the orders of this Court, a settlement was reached on 01.11.1998 under the provisions of the Act in W.P.No.5623 of 1995 directed the consideration of regularisation of the petitioners and as the same was not considered and rejected once again W.P.No.20484 of 1997 was filed and the same was disposed of by an order dated 16.3.1999 directing to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 23.7.1999, 24.11.1999 and 6.12.1999 respectively. By the time, the petitioners came to be regularised the services, the respondents Corporation had introduced the pension scheme on 25.7.1996 which require a minimum service of ten years for a person to be eligible to avail the pension scheme. Petitioners ought to have been regularised in the year 1976-77 itself. However, the respondents have unreasonably denied the regularisation and it is only after prolonged legal battles petitioners were regularised with effect from the respective dates in 1999 and in the process petitioners did not have the required qualifying tenure to avail the benefit of pension scheme which has been notified by the Corporation. In those circumstances, the petitioners approached the Labour Court by filing M.P.No.292 of 2003 invoking Sec. 33(C)(2) of the Act which came to be dismissed by the Labour Court erroneously. The Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration of the language under Sec. 33(C) (2) of the Act which provides for independent adjudication of the entitlement of the benefits. However, the Labour Court erroneously relied on Sec. 33 (C) (2) of the Act and dismissed the application made by the petitioners holding that the relief that was claimed by the petitioners was outside the scope of the Sec. 33 (C) (2) of the Act.

(3.) Sri G. Jaya Prakash Baby, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that there is no error committed by the Labour Court and the relief which was sought by the petitioners being outside the settlement the Labour Court rightly refused to grant the same.