RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute which the petitioner Association seeks a reference, to the industrial Tribunal for its adjudication, is their demand for extension of pensionary benefits to their members, all of whom retired from the services of the third respondent company prior to 24. 08. 1986. The Government, by its order dated 4. 3. 1998, declined to make the reference holding that a retired workman was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial disputes Act, that the demand of retired employees did not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' and that the dispute raised by the petitioner, an association of retired employees, could not be entertained under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). The Government further informed the petitioner that, as an industrial dispute would arise only in case of a difference between the employer and their workmen and since the Association did not represent any employee in service, it had formed an opinion that there was neither a dispute in existence, nor was a dispute apprehended, and that the matter in dispute did not merit reference. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, are that the petitioner, an association of retired employees of the ILTD Division of ITC Limited, has been seeking extension of pensionary benefits under the "platinum Jubilee Fund Monthly Pension Scheme" announced by the Chairman of ITC Limited on 24. 10. 1986. The pension scheme was made applicable to all non-seasonal employees on the pay rolls of the company as on 24. 8. 1986 and not for those who had retired from the service of the company prior thereto. In the charter of demands dated 31. 3. 1990, as item 9 (a) and (b), the Union, representing employees of the ILTD Division, demanded that all clerical/class 'a' workmen be paid 1/3rd of their last drawn wages as pension subject to a minimum of Rs. 375/- per month on their reaching the age of superannuation/retirement/resignation/discharge/death etc. , till they were alive and to the widow or children thereafter. The demand raised by the Union of the workmen was not accepted by the third respondent. The retired employees later formed themselves into an association and continued the dispute raised earlier by the Union of workmen. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur took up the matter for conciliation and, thereafter, sent his failure report to the government. The Petitioner-Association filed W. P. No. 4094 of 1994 before this court seeking reference of the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial tribunal. While the writ petition was pending before this Court the Government, vide memo dated 24. 3. 1994, opined that the dispute did not merit reference. The reason for its refusal was that retired employees could not raise any demand with their previous employer as an employer-employee relationship no longer existed. The said order was set aside by this Court and the Government was directed to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent filed W. A. No. 904 of 1994. The Division Bench, by its order dated 14. 12. 1995, directed the Government to reconsider the request of the workmen after applying its mind to the material on record and take an appropriate decision whether or not the dispute should be referred for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act uninfluenced by its earlier decision in its memo dated 24. 3. 1994 or by the observations of this Court in W. P. No. 4094 of 1994 dated 13. 4. 1994. Thereafter the Government, vide memo dated 04. 03. 1998, rejected the petitioners' request for reference resulting in their invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SRI M. Panduranga Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, since the claim of the workman, who retired prior to 24. 08. 1986, for being extended the benefits of the pension scheme, formed a part of the charter of demands raised by the Union of workmen of the 3rd respondent company, the said issue constituted an "industrial Dispute" between the employer and the workmen in relation to the "conditions of labour of any person". Learned Counsel would contend that the expression "person" in Section 2 (k) would include a retired workman also and that the petitioner association had merely continued the dispute raised by the Union earlier. According to the Learned Counsel, the government could not have taken upon itself the task of adjudicating the dispute nor could it have rejected the request for reference on extraneous grounds and, as the Industrial Dispute related to extension of pensionary benefits to employees of the 3rd respondent who retired from service prior to 24. 8. 1986, the government ought to have referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial tribunal. Learned counsel would contend that, since the Government had failed to examine the petitioner's request for reference in the proper perspective, despite specific directions of this court to do so, a mandamus should now be issued directing them to refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial tribunal and that no useful purpose would be served in now directing them to reconsider this issue all over again. Learned counsel would place reliance on mukand Ltd Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers Association, 2000 1 LLJ 1583 in this regard.