Supreme Court of India
COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ONGC EMPLOYEES AND ORS.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN- TEL BHA VAN DEHRADUN AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 105
- Decided
- 23 March 1990
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
Holding
Employees absorbed from temporary service into ONGC are not entitled to a pension in addition to the Contributory Provident Fund benefits, as the CPF scheme substitutes for pension and Section 12 does not apply.
Summary
The petitioners, former temporary employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) who were absorbed into the statutory body after the ONGC Act, 1959, claimed a right to a pension in addition to the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). They relied on Section 13(1) of the ONGC Act and Regulation 3(2) of the 1975 service regulations, contending that their pension right was protected and that Section 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 preserved that right despite opting for CPF. The Court held that the CPF scheme was intended as a substitute for an old‑age pension and that Section 12 could not be invoked because the petitioners were not entitled to a pension at the time the Provident Fund scheme became applicable. Consequently, the service rules allowed a choice between pension or CPF, not both, and the petitioners had elected CPF. The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition, finding no entitlement to a pension in addition to CPF benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether temporary employees absorbed into ONGC after the ONGC Act are entitled to a pension in addition to Contributory Provident Fund benefits.
- Whether Section 13(1) of the ONGC Act and Regulation 3(2) of the 1975 service regulations protect the right to pension for such employees.
- Whether Section 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 preserves the right to pension despite the employee's election of the CPF scheme.
- Whether the CPF scheme is a substitute for pension, thereby precluding dual benefits.
Legislation cited
Subjects
pensioncontributory provident fundtemporary employeesabsorptionservice lawdual benefitSection 12Section 13statutory bodyemployee rights
Judgment
COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ONGC
A
EMPLOYEES AND ORS.
v.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THROUGH ffS
CHAIRMAN-TEL BHAVAN DEHRADUN AND ANR.
B MARCH 23, 1990
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ, B.C. RAY, M.H. KANIA,
K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL,. JJ.)
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959: Section 13( 1) & 32
Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Conditions of Appoint-
c ment and Service) Regulations, 1975: Regulation 3(2).
Service Law-Pension-Temporary Government employees-
Absorption in a statutory body. Oil and Natural Gas Commission-No
right to receive pension as a part of conditions of service before
D absorption-After absorption opting Contributory Provident Fund and -'---
availing the benefit. Held not entitled to pension in addition to Provi-
dent Fund-Protection of Section 13( 1) and Regulation 3(2) held
inapplicable-Section 12 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Mis-
cellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 not attracted.
E Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
1952: Section 12/Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme is in the nature of the substi-
tute for old age pension-Object of the Act explaines.
F The petitioners, employed in temporary capacity with the Oil and
Natural Gas Commission when it was a Department of the Government
of India, were subsequently absot'bed in the said Commission when it
was established as a statutory body under the Oil and Natural Gas
Commission Act, 1959. The Employees' P,rovident Funds and Miscel-
laneous Provisions Act, 1952 was made applicable to the Commission.
G The petitioners opted for Contributory Provident Fund and availed the
benefit.
The petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court claiming the
benefit of pension in addition to the Provident Fund contending that (i)
under the relevant Rules governing their service, they were entitled to /'-
H pension on their being made permanent and that the right to pension,
156
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC 157
which was part of their service condition, was protected by Section
A
13(1) of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act read with Regulation
3(2) of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Terms and Conditions of
Appointment and Service) Regulations 1975; and (ii) In spite of the
introduction of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme their right to
pension was preserved by Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act.
B
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court,
HELD: l. The scheme of C6ntributory Provident Fund, by way of
) retiral benefit, envisaged by the Provident Fund Act, is in the nature of
a substitute for old age pension because it was felt that in the prevailing
conditions in India, the institution of a pension scheme could not be
visualised in the near future. It was not the intention of Parliament that c
Provident Fund benefit envisaged by the said Act would be in .addition
to pensionary benefits. [16SG-H; 166A]
---- -;lo- __
2. Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act seeks to protect the wages
of an employee to whom the scheme framed under the said act applies as D
well as the total quantum of certain specified benefits to which he is
entitled under the terms of his employment. It prohibits an employer
from reducing, whether directly or indirectly, the wages of an employee
to whom the Scheme applies or the total quantum of benefits in the
nature of old age pension, gratuity, Provident Fund or life insurance to
which the employee is entitled under the terms of his employment E
express or implied. The said section proceeds on the basis that if an
employee is entitled to any benefit in the nature of old age pension
under the terms of his employment the said benefit would not be denied
to him on the application of the Scheme. [166A-C]
r 2.1 In the instant case, on the date of application of the Provident F
Fund Scheme to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. the benefit of
pension was not a part of the terms of employment of the petitioners and
they were not entitled to receive pension on that date. Consequently, the
petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of Section 12 of the Provident
Fund Act. [166D]
G
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] l S.C.R.
111, held inapplicable .
. .,/
3. The petitioners were employed on temporary basis at the time
when the Commission was established as a statutory body under the Oil
and Natural Gas Commission Act and on that date they were not H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
A entitled to claim pension because under the relevant Rules pension was
not payable to a person employed on temporary basis. The petitioners,
therefore, cannot claim that on the date of their becoming the
employees of the Commission established under the Oil and Natural
Gas Commission Act in 1959, they had a right to pension which has
been protected under sub-section (I) of Section 13 and clause (2) of
B Regulation 3ofthe Regulations. [J64A-BJ
3.1 Under the relevant service rules applicable to petitioners,
they could either claim pension or the benefit of the Contributory Pro-
vident Fund and they could not avail both the benefits. Since the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Contributory Provident
Fund under the Provident Fund Act and the Provident Fund Scheme
c and have availed the said benefit for the past 28 years, they should be
taken to. have opted for said benefit and they cannot invoke the service
rules with regard to pension and claim the right to receive pension as
part of their conditions of service. [164C-DJ
D 3.2 The persons who were employed in temporary capacity with
the Oil and Natural Gas Commission when it was being run as a Depart-
ment of the Government of India prior to the enactment of the Oil and
Natural Gas Commission Act and who were subsequently absorbed in
the Commission, as established under the said Act, are not entitled to
pension in addition to the Provident Fund benefit to which they are
E entitled under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act. [I67B-CJ
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1152 of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
F
M.K. Ramamurthi, R.C. Pathak, Naresh Mathur, Sudhir Kumar
and Ms. Baby Lal for the petitioners.
B. Dutta, R.K. Joshi and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The only question which arises for consi-
deration in this writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion, is whether persons who were employed in temporary capacity
with the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (hereinafter referred to as ·
H 'the Commission'), when it was being run as a Department of the
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC [AGRAWAL] 159
Government of India prior to the enactment of the Oil & Natural Gas
A
Commissfon Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ONGC Act')
and who were subsequently absorbed in the Commission, as estab-
·• lished under the said Act, are entitled to pension, in addition to the
Provident Fund benefits to which they are entitled under the provi-
sions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Provident Fund Act'). B
The Commission was intially formed as a Department of the
Government of India and it continued to be so till October 15, 1959,
when the ONGC Act was enacted and the Commission was established
as a statutory body under the said Act. Section 13 of the ONGC Act
makes provision for tran.sfer of service of the existing employees to the
Commission on the same tenure, remuneration and terms and condi- c
tions as they would have held, if the Cornmission had not been
established, until such tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions
are duly altered by the Commission. In the proviso of Sub-Section ( 1)
of Section 13 of the ONGC Act, it is further provided that the tenure,
remuneration and terms and conditions of service of any such D
employee shall not be altered to his disadvantage without the previous
approval of the Central Government. In exercise of the powers confer-
red by Section 32 of the ONGC Act the Commission, with the previous
approval of the Central Government, has made the Oil & Natural Gas
Commission (Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service)
Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). In E
clause 2(b) of Regulation 3, it has been provided that nothing in the
Regulation shall operate to deprive any employee of any right or
privilege to which he is entitled by the terms or conditions of service,
or any agreement, subsisting between such person and the Govern-
ment.
F
By notification No. GSR 705, dated May 16, 1961, Schedule"! to
the Provident Fund Act was amended so as to make the provisions of
the said Act applicable to any industry engaged in the manufacture of
petroleum or natural gas exploration, prospecting, drilling or produc-
tion with effect from June 30, 1961. By another Notification No. GSR
706, dated May 16, 1961, issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the Provident G
Fund Act the provisions of the said Act were made applicable to
establishments engaged in the storage or transport or distribution of
·" petroleum or natural gas or products of either petroleum or natural gas
with effect from June 30, 1961. A corresponding amendment was
made in the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Provident Fund Scheme'), by Notification dated H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
June 5, 1961, whereby Sub-Clause (xviii) was inserted in Clause (b) of
A
sub-para (3) of para 1 of the said scheme and thereby the Provident
Fund Scheme was made applicable, with effect from June 30, 1961, to
factories relating to petroleum or natural gas exploration, prospecting,
drilling or production and petroleum or natural gas refining and
establishments engaged in the storage or transport or distribution of
B petrolum or natural gas or products of either petroleum or natural gas
covered by the notifications of the Government of India in the
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Nos. G .S.R. 705 and 706, dated
May 16, 1961, respectively. As a result of the aforesaid amendments
introduced in the Provident Fund Act and the Provident Fund
Scheme, the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Provident
Fund Scheme became applicable to the Commission with effect from
June 30, 1961.
The petitioners in this writ petition represent the employees who
were employed on temporary basis with the Commission prior to the - .--"-....
enactment of the ONGC Act and who have been absorbed· in the
o Commission after the enactment of the ONGC Act and the establish-
ment of the Commission is a statutory body. The case of the peti-
tioners is that while they were employed in the Commission before the
enactment of the ONGC Act, they were entitled under the relevant
rules governing their service, to pension on their being made perma-
nent and that the said right to pension, which was part of their condi-
.E lions of service, is protected under Section 13(1) of the ONGC Act:
The petitioners have submitted that persons who were employed on
temporary basis with the Commission prior to the enactment of the
ONGC Act and were absorbed in the Commission subsequent to the
enactment of the ONGC Act are entitled to pension on their retire-
ment irrespective of the fact that they· are entitled to Provident fund
F benefits under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Provi-
dent Fund Scheme.
The writ petition has been contested by the Commission and in
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission it has been
stated that after the introduction of Contributory Provident Fund, in
G accordance with the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the
Provident Fund Scheme, the petitioners have been availing the
benefits of Contributory Provident Fund and since the petitioners have
opted for Contributory Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act ;...
and the Provident Fund Scheme they cannot claim pension in addition
to Contributory Provident Fund. It has been submitted that, on the
H date of enactment of the ONGC Act, the petitioners were temporary
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC [AGRAWALI 161
employees and they were not entitled to pension under the relevant
A
service rules applicable to them and, therefore, they are not entitled to
pension on their retirement after being absorbed in the Commission
subsequent to the enactment of the ONGC Act. It has been further
submitted that the petitioners cannot claim a double benefit i.e., Con-
tributory Provident Fund as well as pension, and that they could either
claim Contributory Provident Fund or pension, and since they opted B
for Contributory Provident Fund on the introduction of the Provident
Fund Scheme and have been availing the said benefit during the past
28 years, they cannot be permitted to claim pension in addition to
) Contributory Provident Fund.
Shri M.K. Ramamurthi, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
has placed reliance on Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the ONGC Act
c
and Clause (2) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations which provide as
under:
"Section 13(1): Subject to the provisions of this Act, every
person employed by the existing organisaton immediately D
before the date of establishment of the Commission shall,
on and from such date, become an employee of the
Commission with such designation as the Commission i:nay
determine and shall hold his office or service therein by the
same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same
terms and conditions as he would have held the same on E
such date if the Commission had not been established and
shall continue to do so unless and until his employment in
the Commission is terminated or until such tenure, re-
muneration and terms and conditions are duly altered by
the Commission:
F
Provided that-
(a) the tenure, remuneration and terms and conditions of
service of any such person shall not be altered to his dis-
advantage without the previous approval of the Central
Government; G
(b) any service rendered in the existing organisation by
any such person shall be deemed to be service under the
Commission; and
(c) all persons employed by the Commission on the date of H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.
A !tsestablishment, who, immediately before such date, hold,
ma permanent or quasi-permanent capacity, posts in con-
nection with the affairs of the Union or of any State, but
not posts in the existing organisation, shall be treated as
Government servants on foreign service with the
Commission.''
B
"Regulation 3(2): Nothing in these regulations shall
operate to deprive any employee of any right or privilege to
which he is entitled:-
(a) by or under any law for the time being in force; or
c (b) by the terms or conditions of service, or any agree-
ment, subsisting between such person and the Govern-
ment, or
(c) by the terms of any agreement subsisting between him
D and the Commission at the commencement of these
regulations.''
The submission of Shri Ramamurthi is that in view of Sub-
Section (1) of Section 13 ·of the Act, the employees who were
employed in the Commission immediately before the establishment of
E the Commission under the ONGC Act became employees of the Com-
mission and they are entitled to hold their office or service in the ,.>..,
Commission upon the same terms and conditions as they were applic-
able to them on the date of such establishment of the Commission and
they are entitled to continue to do so until such terms and conditions
are duly altered by the Commission and that any such alteration in the
F terms and conditions of service which is to their disadvantage could be ·' f
made only with the previous approval of the Central Government and
the said right of the employees is also protected by Clause (2) of
Regulation 3 of the Regulations which have been framed by the Com-
mission with the previous approval of the Central Government. Shri
Ramamurthi has urged that under the relevant Service Rules, which
G were applicable to the petitioners at the time when they were absorbed
in the service of the Commission on the enactment of the ONGC Act,
the petitioners, though temporary employees, were entitled to pension
on their being made permanent and that the said right of the petition-
ers, being part of their conditions of service, has been protected by '?--
Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the ONGC Act, as well as Clause (2)
H of Regulation 3 of the Regulations and it has not been taken away
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC [AGRAWALJ 163
because the Central Government has not given its approval to the A
denial of the said right of the petitioners. In support of his aforesaid
submissions, Shri Ramamurthi, has invited our attention to the provi-
sions of Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules'), which deals with com-
mencement of qualifying service and prescribes that qualifying service
B
of a government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge
of the post to which he is appointed either substantively or in an
officiating or temporary capacity, provided that officiating or tem-
porary service is followed without interruption by substantive appoint-
ment in the same or another service or post.
The Pension Rules were issued in 1972 and were not applicable c
at the time when the petitioners were absorbed in the Commission on
the enactment of the ONGC Act, 1959. It is, however, not disputed
that the provisions with regard to pension, as contained in the Civil
Service Regulations which were applicable at that time, were not diffe-
rent from those contained in the Pension Rules and pension was pay-
D
able only if the employment was substantive and permanent (Regula-
tions 352, 362 and 368). Under the Civil Service Regulations, an
employee who was initially engaged on contract and was subsequently
appointed to the same or different post in a substantive capacity on
pensionable basis without interruption of duty was allowed the option
of surrendering the Government contribution to his Contributory Pro-
vident Fund together with the interest thereon for the period of the E
I-" contract and to count one half of the contract service towards pension
(see: Choudhari's compilation of Civil Service Regulations, 5th
Edition, Volume I, pages 216-217). Similarly, in cases where a per-
-· manent Government servant was transferred to an autonomous
organisation consequent on the conversion of a Government Depart-
ment into such a body, there was Government order dated 5th F
November, 1964 (Annexure III to the writ petition) which provided
that the Government servant would be given an option to either retain
the pensionary benefit available to him under the Government Rules
or be governed by the Rules of the autonomous body. This option was
also available to quasi permanent and temporary employees after they
had been confirmed in the autonomous body. In other words, a G
Government servant could either avail pensionary benefits or the
benefit of Contributory Provident Fund, but he could not avail both
the benefits. In the Pension Rules, there is an express provision in
Rule 2(d) which prescribes that the said Rules shall not apply to
persons entitled to the benefit-of a Contributory Provident Fund.
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.
A . In the p~esent case, the petitioners were employed on temporary
basis at the time when the Commission was eastablished as a statu-
tory body under the ONGC Act and on that date they were not
entitled to claim pension because under the relevant Rules pension
was not payable to a person employed on temporary basis. The
petitioners, therefore, cannot claim that on the date of their becoming
B the employees of the Commission established under the ONGC Act in
1959, they had a right to pension which has been protected under
Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 and Clause (2) of Regulation 3 of the
Regulations. The petitioners cannot also claim protection of the
aforesaid provisions on the basis that right to receive pension was part
of their condition of service on the date of their becoming the
C employees of the Commission under Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of
the ONGC Act, in as much as under the relevant service rules applic-
able to them, they could either claim pension or the benefit of the
Contributory Provident Fund and they could not avail both the
benefits. Since the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Con-
tributory Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and the Provi-
0 dent Fund Scheme and have availed the said benefit for the past 28
years, they should be taken to have opted for said benefit and they
cannot invoke the service rules with regard to pension and claim· the
right to receive pension as part of their conditions of service. We are,
therefore, unable to accept the contention of Shri Ramamurthi, based
on the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 of the ONGC Act
E and Clause (2) of Regulation 3 of the Regulations, that the petitioners
are entitled to claim pension in addition to the Provident Fund payable
to them under the Provident Fund Act and the Provident Fund
Scheme.
Shri Ramamurthi, has next contended that in view of Section -12
F of Provident Fund Act, the right of the petitioners to pension bas been
preserved and the introduction of the Contributory Provident Fund
under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the Provident
Fund Scheme does not disentitle the petitioners from claiming pension
--
to which they were entitled before the introduction of the Contri'
butory Provident Fund in the Commission. In support of the aforesaid
G submission, Shri Ramamurthi has placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Another, [1981] 2
S.C.R. 111.
Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act, provides as under:
·"No employer in relation to an establishment to which any
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC [AGRAWALJ 165
Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies shall, by reason
A
only of his liability for the payment of any contribution to
the Fund or the Insurance Fund or any charges under this
Act or the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme reduce,
whether directly or indirectly, the wages of any employee
to whom the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies or
the total quantum of benefits in the nature of old age pen- B
sion, gratuity, Provident Fund or life insurance to which
the employee is entitled under the terms of his employ-
ment, express or implied."
).
The said provision in our view is not applicable in the present
.case. The Provident Fund Act has been enacted with the object of
providing social security to the employees in factories and other c
establishments covered by the said Act, after their retirement. In the
Statement of Objects and Reasons for the said enactment it was
mentioned as under:
"The question of making some provision for the future .of D
the industrial worker after he retires, or for his dependents
in case of his early death, has been under consideration for
some years. The ideal way would have been provisions
through old age and survivors' pensions as has been done in
the industrially advanced countries. But in the prevailing
conditions in India, the institution of a pension scheme can- E
not be visualised in the near future. Another alternative
may be for provision of gratuities after a prescribed period
of service. The main defect of a gratuity scheme, however,
is that amount paid to a worker or his dependents would be
small, as the worker would not himself be making any
contribution to the fund. Taking into account the various F
difficulties, financial and administrative, the most appro-
priate course appears to be the institution, compulsorily, of
Contributory Provident Fund in which both the worker and
the employer would contribute. Apart from other advan-
tages, there is the obvious one of cultivating among the
workers a spirit of saving something regularly." G
This indicates that the scheme of Contributory Provident Fund,
by way of retiral benefit, envisaged by the Provident Fund Act, is in
the nature of a substitute for old age pension because it was felt that in
the prevailing conditions in India, the institution of a pension scheme
could not be visualised in the near future. It was not the intention of H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.
A Parliament that Provident Fund benefit envisaged by the said Act
would be in addition to pensionary benefits. Section 12 of the Provi-
dent Fund Act seeks to protect the wages of an employee to whom the
scheme framed under the said Act applies as well as the total quantum
of certain specified benefits to which he is entitled under the tenns of
his employment. With that end in view, Section 12 prohibits an
B employer from reducing, whether directly or indirectly, the wages of
an employee to whom the Scheme applies or the total quantum of
benefits in the nature of old age pension, gratuity, Provident Fund or
life insurance to which the employee is entitled under the terms of his
employment express or implied. The said Section proceeds on the
basis that if an employee is entitled to any benefit in the nature of old
C age pension under the tenns of his employment the said benefit would
not be denied to him on the application of the Scheme. It is not the
case of the petitioners that on June 30, 1961, when the Provident Fund
Scheme was made applicable to the Commission, the petitioners had
become permanent and were entitled to pension. It cannot, therefore, -X-~-
be said that on the date of the application of the Provident Fund
D Scheme to the Commissioner, the petitioners were entitled to pension
under the tenns of their employment. They cannot, therefore, invoke
the provisions of Section 12 of the Provident Fund Act.
In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Another, (supra) on
which reliance has been placed by Shri Ramamurthi, the petitioner
E before this Court was employed as a clerk in Burmah Shell Oil Storage
Ltd. The undertaking of that company was statutorily acquired by the
Government of India under the Bunnah Shell (Acquisition of Under-
takings in India) Act, 1976, and subsequently the said undertaking was
vested by the Central Government in the Bharat Petroleum Corpora-
tion Limited, a Government Company. In the Bunnah Shell, there
F was a voluntary retirement scheme in force which was governed by the
terms of a trust deed of 1950. The said petitioner was receiving pension
under the said scheme. Certain deductions were made from the pen-
sion paid to the petitioner on account of Employees' Provident Fund
and Gratuity paid to him. This Court held that in view of Section 12 of
the Provident Fund Act, such deductions were not pennissible and
G that the entire amount of pension should be paid to the petitioner
without deduction. This decision has no application to the instant case
because in that case the petitioner before this Court was entitled to
receive pension under the voluntary retirement scheme at the time
when the provisions of 'the Provident Fund Act became applicable to
Burmah Shell and the right to receive pension was part of the terms of
H employment of the said petitioner. In the present case it cannot be said
ONGC EMPLOYEES v. ONGC {AGRAWAL] 167
that on the date of the application of the Provident Fund Scheme to A
the Commission on June 30. 1961, the petitioners were entitled to
receive pension and the benefit of pension was a part of the terms of
·°"' employment of the petitioners on that date.
For the reasons mentioned above, it must be held that the
B
persons who were employed in temporary capacity with the Commis-
sion when it was being run as a Department of the Government of
India prior to the enactment of the ONGC Act and who were subse-
quently absorbed in the Commission, as established under the said Act,
are not entitled to pension in addition to the Provident Fund benefits
to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Provident Fund
Act. The writ petition, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. c
There will be no order as to costs.
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pension"Sign in to search