I T C LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court arises out of an award of the Labour Court. The appellant challenged the award by way of writ petition. Having lost before the Single Judge, it has come in letters patent appeal. The facts of the case, shortly stated, are as follows.

(2.) The workman, namely, S.S. Prasad, who is respondent No. 3 in this appeal, was one of the employees of the appellant company. He opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in May 1982. His resignation was accepted by the management with effect from July 15, 1982. He was allowed pension @ Rs. 167 as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated August 17, 1981. Earlier, a; pension scheme had been introduced by the management in terms of agreement dated June 27, 1977 in terms of which pension was payable for a period of ten years to such workmen, who retired on or after June 1, 1977. On August: 17, 1981, the management entered into another agreement with the Indian Tobacco Company's Employees Union representing the workmen at Patna effective from May 1981. While the period of pension continued to be ten years, the amount of pension was slightly increased. Certain other modifications in the pension scheme were also made with which we are not concerned in this case. It may only be stated that as per the scheme, pension was payable for a period of ten years from the date of cessation of service and the amount was to be determined by multiplying the basic wage with the number of completed years of service and by dividing the product by 200. The minimum and maximum limits of pension were fixed at Rs. 40/- and Rs. 225/- per month. The respondent workman upon his retirement with effect from July 15, 1982 was accordingly allowed monthly pension of Rs. 167/- for a period of ten years from July 16, 1982.

(3.) In the year 1986. to be precise, on August 24, 1986. the company completed 75 years of its existence. The occasion was celebrated as Platinum Jubilee. As a part of the Platinum Jubilee Celebration the management created a Platinum Jubilee Pension Fund under Trust Deed dated May 27, 1987, to provide pension to the workmen who were entitled to pension benefits in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Fund appended to the Trust Deed. Though the Trust Deed was executed on May 27, 1987, the Scheme was made operative from August 24, 1986, that is, the date when the company completed 75 years, of its existence. Later, on January 30, 1988, the management entered into a fresh bi-partite settlement with the employees at Patna represented by the Indian Tobacco Company Limited Employees' Union (It appears that some workmen had sought voluntary retirement from the service of the company and they had made a request for revision of the retirement benefits for the workmen proceeding on voluntary retirement). As per the terms of the Settlement dated January 30, 1988, which superseded the previous settlement of August 17, 1981, the terms and conditions of workmen, who were on the permanent rolls of the Patna Branch of the Company as on January 29, 1988 would be revised, as per provisions of the Settlement, for the purpose only of computing the gratuity and leave encashment, on their voluntary retirement from the service of the company. As regards pension, however, the settlement provided that the pension Scheme envisaged under Platinum Jubilee Pension Fund Rules shall be applicable to all workmen on the rolls of the company as on August 24, 1986. As regards workmen, who had retired prior to August 24, 1986 and were getting their pension under the 1981 Settlement, it was clarified that they would be governed by the previous settlement and the provisions of the Platinum Jubilee Pension Fund Rules would not be applicable to them. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the Platinum Jubilee Pension Fund Rules the pension was payable for life and not for period of ten years only. The method of calculation was also modified. Instead of dividing the product of the basic wage multiplied by the completed years of continuous service by 200 as before, the product was made divisible by 180.