Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three women employed as Van Mazdoor (forest workers) in the Forest Department of Maharashtra, filed a complaint before the Industrial Court under Section 28 read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). They sought a declaration that the respondents were engaged in unfair labour practices and claimed pension upon completion of qualifying service. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 24.09.2008, holding that the petitioners had failed to establish that they had completed ten years of qualifying service to become entitled to pension. The court found that the petitioners were appointed as Van Mazdoor with effect from 01.11.1994 as per Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996, and before completing ten years from that date, they attained the age of superannuation: petitioner No.1 retired on 31.05.2004, petitioner No.2 on 31.05.2004, and petitioner No.3 on 31.03.2004. The Industrial Court also rejected the claim for counting half of their previous continuous service rendered on daily wages from 21.03.1977, 01.07.1986, and 01.04.1979 respectively, holding that the petitioners failed to establish the conditions under Note 1 of Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found no perversity in the Industrial Court's findings and held that the petition lacked merit. The court noted that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence and recorded findings of fact, which could not be re-appreciated in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Qualifying Service - Ten Years - Petitioners, appointed as Van Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.11.1994, retired before completing ten years of service - Industrial Court held they failed to establish ten years of qualifying service - Held that pension eligibility requires ten years of qualifying service and the finding of fact is not perverse (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Counting of Past Service - Daily Wages - Note 1 under Rule 57 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Petitioners sought to count half of daily wage service from 1977, 1986, 1979 - Industrial Court held they failed to establish conditions under Note 1 - Held that the burden to prove compliance with Note 1 lies on the claimants and the Industrial Court's finding is not perverse (Paras 2-3). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Interference with findings of fact - Industrial Court's findings based on evidence and not perverse - Held that High Court under Article 226 cannot re-appreciate evidence and substitute its own findings (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to pension by counting half of their previous continuous service rendered on daily wages prior to regularisation, and whether the Industrial Court's dismissal of their complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act was correct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 24.09.2008. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pension eligibility requires ten years of qualifying service
- daily wage service prior to regularisation cannot be counted unless conditions of Note 1 under Rule 57 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982 are satisfied
- Industrial Court's finding of fact not perverse
- no interference under Article 226.
