Seva Nivritt Ispat Karmchari Association Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--writ petition--maintainability--relief of payment of pension from the trust created under employees provident fund & miscellaneous provisions act, 1952--writ petition against the employer company, not maintainable--the remedy exist only under the provisions of the act of 1952. - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a citizen of u.k. being born in u.k. her parents had set up their matrimonial home in u.k. and had acquired status of permanent residents of u.k. the child with her mother was supposed to return to u.k. but the mother cancelled her tickets and remained behind in india. the husband thereupon started procededings before the high court of justice, family division. u.k. praying for an order that the minor child be made a ward of the court and for a direction upon the wife to return the minor child to the jurisdiction of the said court. a further direction was given for the passport and other international travel documents of the minor child to be handed over to the solicitors of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of a minor child. orderk. ramamoorthy, j.1. seven petitioners have filed the writ petition claiming pensionary benefits. the first and seventh petitioners are associations and petitioners 2 to 5 are individuals. the prayer made is for a declaration that petitioners 2 to 6 and similarly situate retired employees and from bhilai steel plant and rourkela steel plant of the steel authority of india with the sail employees. pension scheme was introduced for sail employees retiring after 1.1.1989. on introduction of scheme necessary recovery has been effected by the managements of various steel plants of sail, including bhilai and rourkela steel plants. as such the petitioners are also eligible to receive pension since necessary recovery had been affected by the steel plants in which they were working. they are now claiming pension from the steel authority of india.2. mr.bhim sain, senior manager(personnel) of respondent no.2 filed a common counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 2,4 & 5. it is stated in the counter-affidavit that sail employees superannuation benefit fund, (in short sesbf) was constituted in september, 1994 consisting of representatives of the trade unions, steel executive federation of india (sefi). this is an approved fund within the meaning of sec.2(6) of the income tax act, 1961. the recovery made from the employees is kept in a separate account. it is stated that in 1995, president of india pronounced an ordinance, namely, employees providence fund and miscellaneous provisions (amendment) ordinance, 1995, providing for the payment annuity and according to them all employees are governed by that statute. ordinance had become act and the petitioners are governed by the provisions of the an act and thereforee, the petition is not maintainable.3. having gone through the affidavit exchanged, we are of the view that as the respondent company does not have control over the manner or method of disbursement, including refund, investment or purchase of amenities, which under the framework of the scheme is the responsibility of the trustees through the managing trustees, in accordance with the provisions of the income tax act and the rules framed thereunder, the petitioners will have to work out their remedy under the provisions of the act and the scheme. filing of petition against the company is not an appropriate relief. they are at liberty to have recourse under the act and the scheme against the managing trustees.4. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no orders as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. Seven petitioners have filed the writ petition claiming pensionary benefits. The first and seventh petitioners are associations and petitioners 2 to 5 are individuals. The prayer made is for a declaration that petitioners 2 to 6 and similarly situate retired employees and from Bhilai Steel Plant and Rourkela Steel Plant of the Steel Authority of India with the SAIL Employees. Pension Scheme was introduced for SAIL employees retiring after 1.1.1989. On introduction of scheme necessary recovery has been effected by the managements of various Steel Plants of SAIL, including Bhilai and Rourkela Steel Plants. As such the petitioners are also eligible to receive pension since necessary recovery had been affected by the steel plants in which they were working. They are now claiming pension from the Steel Authority of India.

2. Mr.Bhim Sain, Senior Manager(Personnel) of respondent No.2 filed a common counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 2,4 & 5. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that SAIL Employees Superannuation Benefit Fund, (in short SESBF) was constituted in September, 1994 consisting of representatives of the trade unions, Steel Executive Federation of India (SEFI). This is an approved fund within the meaning of Sec.2(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The recovery made from the employees is kept in a separate account. It is stated that in 1995, President of India pronounced an Ordinance, namely, Employees Providence Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995, providing for the payment annuity and according to them all employees are governed by that statute. Ordinance had become Act and the petitioners are governed by the provisions of the an Act and thereforee, the petition is not maintainable.

3. Having gone through the affidavit exchanged, we are of the view that as the respondent company does not have control over the manner or method of disbursement, including refund, investment or purchase of amenities, which under the framework of the scheme is the responsibility of the Trustees through the Managing Trustees, in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the petitioners will have to work out their remedy under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. Filing of petition against the company is not an appropriate relief. They are at liberty to have recourse under the Act and the Scheme against the Managing Trustees.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.