SAVITA RANI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the legal representatives of late Shri Suridnerjit Singh Sayan for issue of a direction to the respondent to pay them the benefit of contributory provident fund, increments in the pay scale, benefit of group insurance and gratuity and also interest on the amount of arrears of pay which was allegedly withheld by the respondent -company for a period of almost four years.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the late Shri Suridner Jit Singh Sayan joined service of the respondent -company as Junior Inspector on 4.8.1976. He was promoted as Inspector Grade -I with effect from 4.8.1979. Service of Shri Surinderjit Singh Sayan was terminated with effect from 5.1.1983. This action of the respondent gave rise to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal -cum -labour Court, Chandigarh, for adjudication. Vide its award dated 4.11.1987, the Industrial Tribunal held that the termination of service of Shri Sayam was in violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It declared the termination of Service of Shri Sayan as void and ordered the reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Against the award of the Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Chandigarh, the respondent -Company filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 18.2.1988. Petition for leave to appeal filed by the Company before the Supreme Court was also dismissed summarily. Thereafter, the respondent -Company gave a cheque dated 29.5.1991 to petitioner No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 83738.29 towards the arrears of salary, gratuity and provident fund payable to late Shri Sayan. This, according to the respondent -Company, amounts to full and final payment to the dues payable to late Shri Sayan but according to the petitioners that amount does not represent the dues payable to them as legal representatives of late Shri Sayan.

(3.) WRIT petition has been opposed by the respondents on the ground that Shri Sayan was not entitled to grant of increments in terms of para 13 of the General Insurance (Ratonalisation of Pay Scales and other conditions of service of development staff) Scheme, 1976, because he had not fulfilled the conditions specified in that paragraph of the Scheme. It has also been pleaded by the respondent that late Shri Sayan was given benefit of pay in the revised pay scale and that he was not entitled to any other monetary benefit except the one paid to petitioner No. 1 vide cheque dated 29.5.1991. Respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioners regarding provident fund and group insurance by contending that no premium was paid from the salary of late Shri Sayan towards group insurance and amount of provident fund was not deducted form his salary. Respondent has also pleaded that for claiming monetary benefits, the petitioners can file a civil suit and there is no ground for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.