AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Petitioner joined services of NGEF as a workman on 1.1.1979. Alleging commission of misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 16.6.1986. An application filed by the Management u/s 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act seeking approval of dismissal of the workman on 16.6.1986 was allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed claim petition u/s 10(4-A) of ID Act, 1947 in the Labour Court. The claim petition was registered as ID. No. 75/2002. The claim petition was dismissed by an award dated 11.8.2004. Assailing the said award, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 50198/2004. The writ petition was allowed in part on 21.7.2009 vide order at Annexure-A. While passing the said order, it has been observed that, from the date of dismissal till the closure of the company, the workman is only entitled for continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits and he is not entitled for closure compensation. The petitioner having approached the respondents in the matter of disbursement of monthly pension, an endorsement, as at Annexure-B has been issued, wherein the petitioner has been notified as follows:
30) Your eligible service is less than 10 years. Hence, you are not eligible for monthly pension. You may apply in Form-10C for withdrawal benefit
Assailing the said endorsement, this writ petition has been filed.
Sri. Harikrishna S. Holla, learned Advocate for respondents was directed to accept notice and appear in the matter. Copy of the writ petition was furnished to Sri. Harikrishna S. Holla.
Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record.
It is apparent that, the impugned endorsement as at Annexure-B is cryptic. The first respondent has not kept in view the observations made in the order passed in W.P.No. 50198/2004 on 21.7.2009. The first respondent ought to have taken note of the said order and passed a reasoned order. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of as follows:
i) Writ petition is allowed in part and the decision of the first respondent, as at Annexure-B is quashed;
ii) First respondent is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the order passed on 21.7.2009 in W.P.No. 50198/2004 and take decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is placed on record by the petitioner.
Sri. Harikrishna S. Holla, is permitted to file Vakalath in four weeks.