'Employer Misappropriated The Money Of Employee By Refusing Him Pension'; Madras High Court Slams Transport Corporation

Madras High Court has recently criticised the state transport corporation for withholding pensionary benefits along with arrears since 2009 to a person who is more than 75 years old now.

Calling the action of the appellant corporation as 'arbitrary', the bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and Mohammed Shaffiq added that the entitlement of pension was already decided by Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court as well as the apex court. In such a scenario, it is never fair not to pay the pension that the ex-employee is lawfully entitled to, the court remarked.

"In the present case on hand, since ' pension ' is a property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the respondent has been deprived of his right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whenever an employee misappropriates money, he has been shown the doors by the employer. In this case, we are of the view that the employer has misappropriated the money of the employee by depriving him of his pension", it was observed in the court order.

The respondent/ writ petitioner was a conductor in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. After the regularisation of his service, he was absorbed into the newly formed Pallavan Transport Corporation. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was relieved from service in 1995. There was a government order by Transport Department that was issued in 2005 pursuant to apex court directions. The G.O stipulated that pension must be paid to those ex-employees who were initially appointed in TN Transport Corporation and then deputed to Pallavan Corporation and completed ten years of service by 1982.

The writ petitioner's request to process his pension was not considered. However, the labour court ordered in favour of the former employee and directed the corporation. The appeal by the corporation was dismissed by High Court and confirmed at the apex court.

It is pertinent to note that the Corporation did not pay the pension and arrears even after the court order. Hence an execution petition was filed by the employee and pension arrears until 2009 were paid by the appellant. Afterwards, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking payment of regular pension and arrears since 2009. 

Upholding the right of the employee to claim pension since he had completed 10 years of service as per the government order as well as on the basis of previous court orders, the single judge bench of the High Court instructed the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd and process the same in a time-bound manner as directed.

Challenging the said single bench order, a writ appeal was filed by the Transport Corporation

"The learned Single Judge was right in holding that there is no necessity to delve into the issue with regard to entitlement of pension payable to the respondent as the same has been confirmed by the order of the Labour Court, which has been further confirmed by this Court and also by the Honourable Apex Court. Pension, as a matter of fact, is a continuous cause of action and there is no necessity for an employee to approach the Labour Court each and every time claiming pensionary benefits. An employee, who has rendered sufficient years of service and who is more than 75 years of age, cannot be allowed to languish and made to approach the Court at every stage to get the relief", the court concluded.

Therefore, while confirming the order of the single judge, the court instructed that arrears of pension since 2009 must be paid by the end of March, 2022 with 9 % interest per annum. The court also made it clear that the regular pension must be paid to the petitioner till his demise from the month of April this year. After his death, the benefit of pension will be extended to surviving legal heirs if any.

Case Title: The Secretary to Government, Transport Department & Anr. v. P.G Venugopal

Case No: W.A. No. 212 of 2022 & C.M.P. No. 1593 of 2022

Click Here To Read/ Download Order