ASIT KUMAR PALIT Vs. WPIL LIMITED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was instituted on March 30, 2005 when the plaint was presented and admitted. The plaintiff is seeking final reliefs in terms of prayers (a) - (e), which are as follows:

(2.) The case stated in the plaint is this. By an instrument dated April 29, 2000 WPIL, the first defendant, created a Superannuation Fund for its employees. At that date, the plaintiff, working from April 16, 1980, was WPIL's Managing Director. According to terms of employment he was entitled to the benefits of the Fund. Then by an instrument dated July 12, 2001 certain clauses of the instrument dated April 29, 2000 were amended. Under an agreement dated Feb. 26, 2002 the plaintiff's tenure as WPIL's Managing Director was extended for two years from June 25, 2000. He retired from WPIL's service on June 24, 2002, and on such retirement he became entitled to pension according to the rules and regulations of the Fund. Though he became entitled to monthly pension of Rs.29,700 from July, 2002, the defendants did not pay him pension. He wrote several letters. By a letter dated March 17, 2003 WPIL acknowledged its liability and requested him to bear with it on the ground that it was incurring losses and having negative cash flows. In a meeting held on June 11, 2003 WPIL's Managing Director proposed for the first time to apply to his case a revised Superannuation Scheme. It was proposed that according to the revised scheme an annuity would be purchased by investing Rs.15 lakh for ensuring his pension and he would be paid a sum of Rs.5 lakh on an ad hoc basis. The proposal was not acceptable, because he was entitled to pension according to the scheme that was in force at the time of his retirement. Under the circumstances, he filed an application for WPIL's winding up. By an order dated June 28, 2004 the application was disposed of asking him to accept pension offered by WPIL without prejudice and relegating him to appropriate proceedings for realisation of his balance claims. For the period from July, 2002 to June, 2004 the defendants did not pay him any pension at all. For this period he is entitled to a monthly pension of Rs.29,700 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. For the period from July, 2004 to Feb. 28, 2005 the defendants paid him a monthly pension of Rs.14,155, though he was entitled to a pension of Rs.29,700. Hence, he is entitled to the unpaid amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Thus on March 1, 2005 he became entitled to Rs.10,77,640.

(3.) The case stated in the written statement dated Dec. 19, 2006 filed by all the defendants is as follows. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The claim is barred by limitation. The suit is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties. The plaintiff has no right to sue WPIL. The trust is not a party to the suit. The instruments relied on by the plaintiff were amended with effect from April 1, 2002 by an instrument dated Oct. 30, 2003. The plaintiff is entitled to pension in accordance only with clause 8(b) of the instrument dated Oct. 30, 2003, and in terms of provisions of the clause the trustees for the trust have purchased an annuity from LICI, and out of such annuity the plaintiff is getting his pension from LICI. WPIL has paid in excess of what the plaintiff is entitled to under the agreement. Since subsequent to March 17, 2003 pension was given to the plaintiff by the trustees for the trust, contents of the letter dated March 17, 2003 are no longer relevant. The plaintiff himself was instrumental in execution of the instrument dated July 12, 2001, and hence he has no right to rely on the instrument. It was executed in breach of fiduciary duty owed by the plaintiff to WPIL. The instrument is not binding on WPIL. The plaintiff is not entitled to the amounts claimed or any part thereof or any interest on any amount.