Full Judgment
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct to forbear the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits and other pension benefits to the 3rd respondent by considering representation sent by the petitioner on 14.11.2015.)
1. The petitioner is the wife of the third respondent, who is employed under the second respondent. There is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent.
2. While so, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to forbear the respondent to disburse the terminal benefits to the petitioner on his retirement.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. When this Court has put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the rules based on which he sought the direction in this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to cite any rule or any decision in his favour. On the other hand, he has submitted that a matrimonial dispute is pending before the Family Court. He has not given any details either in the affidavit or before this Court. However, in the representation dated 14.11.2015, it is stated that as if her husband has agreed to pay 50% of the terminal benefits orally. Based on the representation, now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to forbear the respondent to disburse the terminal benefits.
5. This Court expressed its view that such representation cannot be entertained and he can seek appropriate relief before the Family Court, where the matter is pending, if she is so advised.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for disposal of the representation.
7. I am not inclined to issue direction to consider the representation relating to her claim for 50% of the terminal benefits payable to the husband, who is the third respondent herein as the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show her right to claim 50% of the terminal benefits.
8. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(1. Heard both sides.
2. The writ petitioner has questioned the award of Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the workman. There is a mandate in Section 17 (b) of Industrial Dispute to pay the last drawn wages, if the petitioner has not chosen to reinstate the respondent/workman. An affidavit is filed by the workman that he is unemployed.
3. In view of the same, a direction is issued to the writ petitioner to pay the last drawn wages every month from the date of writ petition till the disposal of the writ petition. The arrears upto December 2015 shall be paid before 10.01.2015 and the last drawn wages from January 2016 onwards shall be paid on or before 10th day of succeeding month. A reference can also be added to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank Vs. Kirtikumar T.Patel reported in (1999) 2 SCC106.)