Supreme Court of India
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusPRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION & ANOTHER
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 406
- Decided
- 18 September 2012
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Court held that the employee had been duly notified of the scheme, his failure to opt precluded any entitlement to family pension, and the tribunal's award was erroneous.
Summary
The appellant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, challenged a tribunal order granting a family pension to the widow of a deceased employee who had not opted for the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971. The employee had died in service in 1982 and his widow had already received the full contributory provident fund amount. The union raised the pension claim nine years after the employee's death, alleging that the corporation failed to inform the employee of his right to opt for the scheme. The corporation produced a notification dated 9 April 1971 and a subsequent letter dated 30 July 1971 showing that all employees were informed and required to submit an option form by 31 August 1971. The Supreme Court held that the employee had been adequately notified, chose not to opt, and therefore was not entitled to family pension, rendering the tribunal and lower courts' findings perverse. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the earlier awards set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the widow of a deceased employee is entitled to family pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 when the employee did not exercise the option and had already received the full provident fund.
- Whether the employer failed to adequately inform the employee of the scheme and his right to opt, thereby creating a liability to pay family pension.
Legislation cited
Subjects
family pensionEmployees Family Pension Scheme 1971option to optprovident fundwidow's claimlabour lawindustrial tribunalnotificationemployer duty
Judgment
(2012] 7 S.C.R. 1139
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A
v.
PRESIDENT, RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION &
ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
EMPLOYEES FAMILY PENSION SCHEME, 1971:
c
Pension Scheme - Employee not exercising option
under the Scheme - Held: Notification dated 9.4.1971 issued
by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was circulated by
the employer-Corporation by letter dated 30. 7. 1971 -
Resultantly, several employees opted for the Scheme and a D
few of them, including the deceased, did not opt for the same
- There is no reason to assume that the employees were
unaware of the Scheme and the Notifications - Further, the
wife of the deceased had received the entire Provident Fund
amount - The dispute raised by the Employees' Union after
nine years is absolutely untenable - Employees Provident E
Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1952 - Labour Laws.
An employee of the appellant-Corporation recruited
in 1962 died in 1982 while in service. He had not
exercised the option under the Employees Family F
Pension Scheme, 1971 and, therefore, his wife accepted
the Contributory Provident Fund and did not raise any
claim for family pension. However, after nine years, the
respondent-Union took up the claim of the wife of the
deceased-employee for family pension and ultimately the G
Industrial Tribunal allowed the same holding that the
employee was not informed of his right to exercise the
option under the Scheme. The writ petition of the
Corporation before the Single Judge and its appeal
1139 H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A before the Division Bench of the High Court remained
unsuccessful.
In the instant appeal filed by the Corporation, the
question for consideration before the Court was :
whether the wife of a deceased-employee was entitled to
B get family pension under the Employees Family-Pension
Scheme, 1971 on the failure of the employee to exercise
his option under the Scheme, especially when the
claimant had already received the entire Provident Fund
amount from the Fund maintained by the employer.
c
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A reading of the Notification dated
9.4.1971 issued by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner along with the communication letter dated
D 30.7.1971 issued by the appellant-Corporation, makes it
evident that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
and the appellant-Corporation had informed all the
departments/unions, as well as the employees working
under the Corporation to exercise their necessary option
E if they wanted to get the benefit of the Family Pension.
Facts would indicate that several employees at that time
had opted and few of them did not opt for that, since they
were interested to get provident fund under the CPF
Scheme and not the family pension under the Scheme,
F after the death of the employee. There is no reason to
assume that the employees were unaware of the
notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner as well as the Corporation. Facts would
also indicate that the wife of the deceased-employee has
G already received the entire provident fund amount since
the employee had not opted under the Scheme. However,
after nine years, respondent Union is raising a dispute
which is absolutely untenable. [Para 14) [1146-G-H; 1147-
A-C]
H 1.2 The Tribunal as well as the Single Judge and the
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS. CORP v. PRESIDENT, 1141
RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION
Division Bench of the High Court have committed a A
grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the
case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily
calls for interference. Accordingly, the award of the
Tribunal as well as the judgments of the Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. [Para B
14-15] [1147-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6639 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2011 of the C
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 960 of 2011 in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2099 of 1999.
S.K. Bhattacharya for the Appellant. D
B. Ramana Murthy for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. E
2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question
whether the widow of an employee is entitled to get family
pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971
(for short 'Scheme'), on the failure of the employer to exercise
his option under the scheme, especially when the claimant has F
already received the entire Provident Fund amount, from the
Fund maintained by the Corporation.
3. Respondent Union raised a claim on behalf of the widow
of late Hari Singh for family pension under the Scheme before G
the State Government. The State Government referred the
matter to the Labour and ·Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short
'Tribunal') for adjudication of the claim. The Tribunal, after
examining the Scheme, took the view that the employee was
not informed of his right to exercise the option under the H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Scheme, consequently, allowed the application and gave a
direction to the appellant-Corporation to disburse family
pension to the widow of Hari Singh, who was working as a
Driver in the service of the Corporation.
B 4. The appellant-Corporation took up the matter before the
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench by filing
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2099of1999, which was dismissed
by the learned Single Judge and, later, confirmed by the
Division Bench as well vide its judgment dated 29.6.2011 in
C D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 960 of 2011. Aggrieved
by the same, appellant-Corporation has come up with this
appeal.
5. Shri S. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-Corporation, submitted that the Tribunal as well
D as the Courts below have misunderstood the provisions of the
Scheme and omitted to take note of all relevant and material
facts for adjudication of the claim raised for family pension.
Learned counsel submitted that there was a complete
misreading of the facts which led to incorrect reasoning resulting
E into rendering a wrong judgment on facts as well as on law.
6. Shri B. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Union, submitted that this Court shall not
interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by all the
F authorities below and that no question of law has been raised
for determination by this Court.
7. In order to examine the rival contentions raised by the
parties, it is necessary to understand the facts of the case so
that this Court can examine whether the Tribunal as wen as the
G Courts below have rendered a perverse finding, which a
reasonable person would not have arrived at under the facts
and circumstances of a particular case.
8. The employee Hira Singh was appointed as a Driver in
H the service of the appellant-Corporation on 22.3.1962, and later,
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS. CORP. v. PRESIDENT,1143
RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. In A
the year 1971, the Central Government introduced a scheme
relating to family pension by making suitable amendments in
the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act,
1952 (for short 'P.F. Act'). Employees desirous of availing of
the benefit of the Scheme had to exercise their option under B
the Scheme and the last date for submission of the application
for the said purpose was 1.9.1971. According to the appellant-
Corporation, Hari Singh did not exercise that option under the
Scheme and, while in service, he died on 30.5.1982.
Contributory Provident Fund, as per the rules, was disbursed c
to the widow of the employee and the same was received as
well. No claim for family pension was raised since the employee
had not opted for the benefit of the Scheme.
9. Respondent Union, however, took up the claim of the
widow after nine years by filing a petition before the State D
Government which, we have already indicated, was referred to
the Tribunal and was decided in favour of the respondent Union.
10. We are, in this case, concerned with the question
whether Hari Singh had opted for the benefit of the Scheme E
which came into force in the year 1971 and whether there was
failure on the part of appellant-Corporation in promptly
informing the employees of the existence of such a Scheme
and their right to exercise option for family pension.
11. We find, on facts, that the Corporation had issued a F
notification on 30.7.1971 seeking necessary option from the
employees. In pursuance of that notification, several employees
had exercised their option for the Scheme and a few did not
opt for that, since they were keen on getting the provident fund
under the Central Provident Fund Scheme (for short 'CPF G
Scheme'). Hari Singh did not opt for the Scheme like several
other employees, since he was keen on getting the provident
fund under the CPF Scheme, rather than family pension under
the Scheme.
H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A 12. Appellant-Corporation has produced the notification
issued by them on 9.4.1971, as Annexure P/1, the operative
part of which reads as follows:
"I am to forward herewith a copy of the employees' Family
Pension Scheme, 1971 which has come into force with
B
effect from 1st March, 1971 for your information and
explaining the provisions of the Family Pension-cum-Life
Assurance Scheme to all the members of the Employees'
Provident Fund.
c 2. According to para 4 of this scheme every employee,
who is a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or of
Provident Funds of factories and other establishments
exempted under section 17 of the Act as on 28.2.1971
have to exercise their option in Form I (copies attached)
D within a period of three months from the 1st March 1971,
and furnish the same to this office immediately after the
specified time.
3. The employees who opt or who are entitled to become
a member of the Family Pension Fund subsequently after
E
1st March, 1971 be asked to furnish the particulars
concerning themselves and their family in Form 2 (copies
attached) and the same may also be sent (along with
option Form No. 1) where-ever necessary.
F 4. The option forms and Nomination forms may please be
sent duly supported with the following statement:-
No. of members No. of members No. of members
(Subscribers) opted for Family opted to continue
as on 28.2.1971 Pension Scheme existing P.F.
G benefit
5. Further requirement of Forms No. 1 and 2 may be had
either directly from this office or the Provident Fund
Inspectors at Jaipur, Jodhpur & Ajmer.
H
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS. CORP v. PRESIDENT.1145
RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
6. The instructions regarding submission of other A
information and returns will follow:"
13. We notice that the above notification was sent to all
the employees of the appellant-Corporation for information with
a request that they should give wide publicity to the scheme and 8
the notification was issued from the Office of the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. Following the above notification,
the Corporation also sent a communication dated 30.7.1971
to the Regional Manager/Administrative Officer/Depot
Manager/Assistant Depot Manager, RSRTC and all the offices C
informing about the notification issued by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner stating as follows:
"All the employees of the Raj. State Road Transport
Corporation who are contributing towards the Provident
Fund are eligible to become the members of family D
pension scheme 1971 and it is obligatory on the part of
the employer to get the option referred to in sub-section
(i) of para 1 exercised by every members to whom the
option is given to become the member of this scheme
before 31st August, 1971. I am, therefore, sending E
herewith one copy of Employees Family Pension Scheme,
1971 along with declaration forms and Option forms which
are required to be explained to each subscriber of the
Provident Fund and get the same signed by each
employee contributing to the Provident Fund as on 1st F
March, 1971.
It shall be your duty under clause 4(3) of the scheme to see
that the option from each subscriber of opted is a list of
optees in the following proforma may also be prepared and
the same may be sent along with declaration forms and G
option forms executed by the subscriber with special
messenger by 31st August, 1971 positively.
List of optees of Family Pension Scheme 1971.
H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Name of Depot/Region/Office ....
S.No. Name of the CP.F. Pay P.F.
employee along Ale No. including amount
with Father's D.A. @6 of
B name pay
including
D.A.
1 2 3 4 5
c Family Total P.F. Remarks
pension amount 5+6 subscription
11 of pay being
including D.A. deducted
at present
D
6 7 8 9
Signature of Head of Office with seal
It is also requested that the scheme may kindly be
E explained to go through carefully and the relevant benefits be
explained to all the subscribers while taking declarations and
options form them so that they may consider to join the scheme
and opt for the same in good numbers, and I shall also request
you to kindly give the publicity of this scheme through the notice
F Board also.
Kindly acknowledge."
14. When we read the notification dated 9.4.1971 issued
by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner along with the
G communication letter dated 30.7.1971 issued by the appellant-
Corporation, it is evident that the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner as well as appellant-Corporation had informed
all the departments/unions, as well as employees working under
the Corporation to exercise their necessary option if they wanted
H to get the benefit of the Family Pension. Facts would indicate
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANS. CORP. v. PRESIDENT,114 7
RAJASTHAN ROADWAYS UNION [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
that several employees at that time had opted and few of them A
did not opt for that, since they were interested to get provident
fund under the CPF Scheme and not the family pension under
the Scheme, after the death of the employee. We have no
reason to think that the employees were unaware of the
notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund B
Commissioner as well as the Corporation. Facts would also
indicate that the wife of Hari Singh had already received the
entire provident fund amount and, since Hari Singh had not
opted under the Scheme. However, after nine years, respondent
Union is raising a dispute which, in our view, in absolutely c
untenable. The Tribunal as well as Courts below have
committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the facts
of the case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily
calls for interference.
15. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow this appeal and D
set aside the award of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of
the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court. However, there will be no order as to costs.
RP. Appeal allowed. E
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "family pension"Sign in to search