HONOURABLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A)
Since both the applicants have common cause of action and the relief prayed for is also the same, they are allowed to file Joint Application.
2. The applicants have filed this OA praying for the following relief:-
“The respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicants sympathetically and grant them an opportunity enabling them to submit their options for electing pension scheme and avail the benefits under the Pension Scheme.”
3. The projected case of the applicants is that they had joined service in the M/s Semi-Conductor Complex Limited (SCL) different dates, and had opted for voluntary retirement on 7.4.2006 and 27.4.2006 respectively. Consequently, they were retired voluntarily w.e.f. 1.5.2006. Thereafter on 16.6.2006, the Semi-Conductor Complex Ltd. was wound up and a newly registered Society, namely, Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL Society) was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1956 on November 8, 2005 and all the employees were asked to submit their option for joining the newly formed Society or not. It is the grievance of the applicants that they were not asked to give any option regarding the Pension Scheme by the newly constituted SCL Society for which the cut off date of 1.9.2006 had been fixed and the employees who retired after 1.9.2006 were given this opportunity to give their options for Pension Scheme. The applicants have challenged this action of the respondents. Hence this OA.
4. The applicants have also filed an MA no. 333/2011 for condonation of delay in filing the OA.
5. The respondents have stated in their reply that the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation. They have further stated that the applicants were relieved by the erstwhile SCL w.e.f. 1.5.2006 whereas the SCL Provident Fund and Pension Scheme was formulated and circulated vide letter dated 29.5.2007 and was to come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2007. The applicants had already been paid their retiral benefits in May, 2006 which were accepted by them without any protest. Therefore, they have raised a preliminary objection of delay inasmuch as the applicants have filed this OA more than four years after the cause of action arose after their retirement.
6. On merits, the objection of the respondents is that the Semi-Conductor Laboratory Provident Funds and Pensions Scheme, 2007, came into operation w.e.f. April 1, 2007 and as per para 3.2 of the Scheme, the Scheme shall not apply to the employees of the erstwhile Semi-Conductor Complex Ltd. who had joined service prior to 1.1.2004, but relinquished their post on account of retirement (including voluntary retirement) resignation, death etc. before 1.9.2006. They have stated that the applicants are covered under sub-clause (a) of Section 3.2 of the Scheme and since they had relinquished their post before coming into force SCL Provident Funds and Pensions Scheme, they cannot be treated as employees of SCL Society and therefore, they are not entitled to opt under the Pension Scheme. Consequently, they have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
7. The applicants have filed a rejoinder generally reiterating the averments made in the OA.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
9. The respondents have raised a preliminary issue of delay in this case. It is seen that the OA is barred by limitation as the cause of action to the applicant arose in May, 2007 when the SCL Provident Fund and Pension Scheme was circulated. They filed this OA in April, 2011 i.e. after about four years when the cause of action arose qua them in May, 2007. The applicants have also filed MA no. 333/2011 for condonation of delay. After going through the MA, this Court finds no sustainable grounds for condoning the delay. Thus, the OA deserves to be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. However, even if we were to condone this delay, the applicants would still not have a case even on merit.
10. On merits, the issue involved in the present OA is a very limited one and that is whether the applicants are covered under the Pension Scheme or not. It is very clear from the facts of the case that the applicants had retired on 1.5.2006 whereas the Memorandum, asking the employees of the erstwhile SCL to give their options on whether they wanted to join the newly constituted SCL Society or not, was circulated on 16.6.2006 after the retirement of the applicants. As per the averments made on behalf of the respondents, SCL Society was operationalised w.e.f. 1.9.2006 and the appointment letters to the employees of the erstwhile SCL Limited who opted to join the newly constituted SCL Society, were given with effect from this date. Since the applicants were not employees of the erstwhile SCL Limited on the date the Memorandum was circulated, they had no locus standi on that date to have been eligible for being asked for their option.
11. Moreover, Clause 3.2 (a) of the SCL Provident Funds and Pensions Scheme lays down as follows:-
“3.2 The Scheme shall not apply to -
a) the employees of the Semi-Conductor Complex Limited, who had joined service prior to 1.1.2004 but relinquished their posts on account of retirement (including voluntary retirement), resignation, death, etc., before 1.9.2006 i.e. before transfer to the Society.”
12. The facts of the case of the applicants fall squarely within the ambit of this sub-clause, according to which they are not eligible to be covered under the said Scheme. Also, the basic fact is that on the date of operationalisation of the newly constituted SCL Society, the applicants did not have an employer-employee relationship with the SCL Society. Therefore, we find that the applicants have failed to establish the validity of their claim and the action of the respondents in rejecting their claim is based on rules and law.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in the OA and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.