Madras High Court
M.Jothi vs Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board on 19 June, 2014
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P. No.30028 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 M.Jothi .. Petitioner ..vs.. 1.Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board, Rep. by its Secretary, G133, Chinthamani Co-operative Commercial Complex, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102. 2.Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme), No.24, 1st Cross Street, Seetharam Nagar, Pudhupalayam, Cuddalore-1. ...Respondents Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the second respondent, quash the order of the second respondent dated 30.08.2013 bearing Pension/Handicrafts/348/2013 in so far as denying the pension for the period from 01.03.2013 to 30.07.2013 under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme, 2006 and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pension at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month for the period from 01.03.2013 to 30.07.2013. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.I.Arockiasamy Government Advocate O R D E R
The petitioner is a registered manual worker under the Tamilnadu Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of work) Act, 1982, shortly, the Act 1982 and the same is not in dispute. She registered as a manual worker on 01.03.2007 and the date of birth is taken as 01.03.2007. At the time of registration, she was 54 years of age. The petitioner completed 60 years of age on 28.02.2013. All these facts are not in dispute.
2.Under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the Act 1982 provides for framing of Scheme for the benefit of manual workers. Accordingly, the Tamilnadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme 2006, shortly the Scheme 2006 was framed. The salient features of the Scheme provides for various benefits to the manual workers such as education benefits, marriage benefits, maternity benefits, accident benefits, pension after 60 years, funeral expenses, etc.,
3.Clause 18 of the Scheme provides for pension on completion of 60 years of age. The same is not in dispute. The second respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2013 sanctioning the pension of Rs.1000/- per month as pension from 01.08.2013 onwards, instead of from 01.03.2013.
4.The petitioner has sought to quash the said order of the second respondent in so far as denying pension from 01.03.2013 and for a direction to pay her pension from 01.03.2013 onwards.
5.A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent to sustain the impugned order stating that the impugned order is based on the proceedings dated 27.12.2012 of the Commissioner of Labour and the second respondent has relied on paragraph No.5 of the proceedings of the Commissioner, which is extracted hereunder:
5.The Commissioner of Labour once again suggested that while sanctioning the pension claim applications, the procedure adopted in the Revenue Department in disbursing of old age pension (OAP) should be followed and the date of sanction by the L.O. (SSS) to be taken into account for sanctioning pension.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
7.I am of the view that the proceedings of the Commissioner has no legal sanctity firstly. Further, paragraph (5) is also not clear that pension shall be paid from the date of sanction of the concerned Labour Officers. If paragraph 5 of the proceedings is understood in the way as the second respondent did, the same would lead to anomalous situation and it would depend upon the sweet will of the sanctioning authority, as pension shall be paid from the date of passing of the order of the Labour Officer. If the Scheme provides that the manual workers, who have completed 60 years, shall be paid pension, the proceedings of the Commissioner cannot prescribe a procedure in violation of the Scheme. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to pension from 01.03.2013 and not from 01.08.2013, the date of passing of order by the sanctioning authority of the pension. The reliance placed by the second respondent on the proceedings of the Commissioner has no legal sanctity, particularly, when it is not in dispute that the petitioner has reached 60 years on 28.02.2013 and the right to pension accrues from 01.03.2013 as per the Statutory Scheme 2006, which cannot be taken away by the Commissioner or by any Authority. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to pay pension to the petitioner from 01.03.2013 onwards within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.06.2014
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vri
To
1.Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Welfare Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
G133, Chinthamani Co-operative Commercial Complex,
Anna Nagar East,
Chennai 600 102.
2.Labour Officer (Social Security Scheme),
No.24, 1st Cross Street,
Seetharam Nagar,
Pudhupalayam,
Cuddalore-1.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.
VRI
W.P.No.30028 of 2013
19.06.2014