Skip to content


V. Sivasubramanian and Others Vs. M.P. Nirmala and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCont.Petitions No. 2013 & 2014 of 2014
Judge
AppellantV. Sivasubramanian and Others
RespondentM.P. Nirmala and Another
Excerpt:
.....contempt petitions before court for posting before any other trial court for disposal hence this contempt petitions court held - even in order passed in writ petitions, court has not held that employees of warehousing corporation will be entitled to pension on par with employees of government - court had clearly held that employees pension scheme framed under act, 1952,shall be implemented - cooperation, food and consumer protection department /second accused, which had extracted above, reiterates that petitioners will be entitled to pension under employees pension scheme, 1995, framed under act, 1952 - court does not find any merit in contempt petitions - both contempt petitions are dismissed. paras : (9, 10) .....made a request to the managing director of the tamil nadu warehousing corporation to constitute a pension scheme for them and in deference to their request, the managing director of the tamil nadu warehousing corporation sent a proposal dated 27.02.2001 to the government for introducing pension scheme to the employees and officers of the tamil nadu warehousing corporation as applicable to the employees of the tamil nadu housing board, tamil nadu slum clearance board, etc. the government, by letter dated 16.07.2001, negatived the proposal on the ground that it would be an additional financial burden on the state exchequer. challenging the said order passed by the government and also seeking a mandamus to the government to prepare a pension scheme, the petitioners filed w.p. nos. 34640 of.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Contempt Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 respectively.)

Common Order

1. These contempt petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 respectively, has not been complied with by the respondents.

2. The petitioners were employees of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, which is a creature of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (Central Act 58 of 1962). The petitioners made a request to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation to constitute a Pension Scheme for them and in deference to their request, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation sent a proposal dated 27.02.2001 to the Government for introducing Pension Scheme to the employees and officers of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation as applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, etc. The Government, by letter dated 16.07.2001, negatived the proposal on the ground that it would be an additional financial burden on the State exchequer. Challenging the said order passed by the Government and also seeking a mandamus to the Government to prepare a Pension Scheme, the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008. In the said writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed final orders on 24.01.2011 in favour of the petitioners and there against, the writ appeals and Special Leave Petition filed by the Government were also dismissed. Thereafter, the Government passed G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014 for implementing Pension Scheme for the employees of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation. Since the Government did not implement the orders passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners preferred the present petitions in Cont. Petition Nos.2013 and 2014 of 2014. When these Contempt Petitions came up for hearing on 12.03.2015, this Court passed the following order:

The Government have passed an order in G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A1) Department dated 09.12.2014 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 dated 24.01.2011, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of the subsequent events, the Contempt Petitions are closed.

2. It is open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 24.01.2011 in case they are still aggrieved.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed Sub Application Nos.119 and 120 of 2015 for re-opening the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by this Court on the ground that G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014, does not comply with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008.

4. The said Sub Applications were allowed by this Court on 11.09.2015 in the following terms:

4. The order dated 12.03.2015 was passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners. The appearance recorded in the order appears to be not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners now wanted to interpret the order passed by the Government for demonstrating that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Court in its true perspective. In view of the same, I consider it deem and fit to recall the order dated 12.03.2015 and restore the contempt petitions.

5. In the result, the order dated 12.03.2015 is recalled. The contempt petitions are restored to file.

6. Since I have passed the order dated 12.03.2015 and the same is now recalled. I consider it fit not to hear the matters henceforth.

7. Registry is therefore directed to place the contempt petitions before My Lord, the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting before any other learned Judge for disposal.

5. Pursuant thereto, the present Contempt Petitions are listed before this Court.

6. Heard Mr. S.T. Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Venkatramani, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.

7. The short point that falls for consideration of this Court is whether G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014, is in conformity with the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008.

8. To appreciate the contentions raised by both sides, it will be profitable to extract the relevant portions of the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 and G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014.

Order dated 24.01.2011 passed in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008:

Under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and as per the powers conferred therein, the Central Government has framed the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and the benefits conferred under the said Scheme have been granted with effect from 16.11.1995. It is in furtherance of the said Scheme framed in the year 1995 and in deference of the same, the second respondent has introduced and implemented the Pension Scheme for its employees. As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme introduced by the second respondent, there is no financial implication imposed on the State Government, as it was available under the original Scheme, viz., Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The Scheme framed by the second respondent is a self-contained one, by which the contributions have been made by both the employer and the employees without imposing any financial implication on the Government.

4. In such view of the matter, making it clear that under the scheme propounded by the second respondent for the purpose of pension of its employees, the State Government shall not be financially implicated, the order of the first respondent is set aside, permitting the second respondent to proceed with the said Scheme created by the second respondent for its employees. It is made clear that the effect of the said scheme formulated by the second respondent shall be with effect from 16.11.1995, as it is submitted by the learned counsel.

G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014:

3. In the meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Warehousing Employees Union and retired employees of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation had filed Writ Petitions 28269/2007, 34640/2007 and 24409/2008 during the year 2007 and 2008 respectively and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras had ordered the second respondent, i.e. the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, to proceed with the Employees Pension Scheme created by it for its employees, i.e., sanction of Pension from the Corpus Fund created by it.

4. The Government after careful consideration have decided to implement the pension scheme equivalent to Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Accordingly, the Government direct that employees of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation be sanctioned Pension Scheme equivalent to Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952).

5. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O. No.68756/BPE/2014 dated 09.12.2014.

9. Even in the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in the writ petitions, this Court has not held that the employees of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation will be entitled to pension on par with the employees of the State Government. This Court has clearly held that the Employees Pension Scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, shall be implemented. G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014, which has been extracted above, reiterates that the petitioners will be entitled to pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the Contempt Petitions.

In the result, both the Contempt Petitions are dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //