Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. It was pointed out that it was no where mentioned in the VRS of the year 2002 that VRS optees will not be getting the pensionary benefits and infact, as per the relevant Clause of the VRS, the compensation payable under the VRS was in addition to the retiral benefits. It was next submitted that many petitioners had received back their contribution with a nominal simple interest of 5% under protest and due to financial difficulty.

13. It was further submitted on behalf of petitioners that the third amendment to the 'Self Contributory Pension Scheme' has been rightly disapproved by respondent No.4-CIT and to overcome this disapproval, the Trust itself has been revoked without following due procedure as provided in the Trust Deed in question. Reliance was placed upon decisions in The Mayor of Lyons Vs. The Advocate General of Bengal & ors. (1876) L.R.3 I.A. 32; Sasadhar Chakravarty & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors. (1996) 11 SCC 1; Mr. Kuriakose V. Cherian Vs. Air India Employees Self Contributory Pension Scheme 2003 (6) BomCr 219; Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme Vs. Kuriakose Vs. Cherian (2005) 8 SCC 404; Basanti Seal & ors. Vs. Hiralal Seal & ors. 2007 (1) CHN 55; Smt. Sikha Das & anr. Vs. Sri Jitendra Kumar Boral 113 CWN 919; Sunita Devi Vs. Life Insurance 2742-500/2005 & 901/2007 Corporation of India & anr. 170 (2010) DLT 48; Centre for Policy Research Vs. Brahma Chellaney & ors. ILR (2010) 5 Del 87 (DB); N M Thai Vs. ONGC Ltd. 2014 GLH (3) 450 and decision of 29th April, 2014 of Gujarat High Court in Spl. Civil Application No. 8297/1999 N.M. Tai Vs. ONGC to submit that revocation of the Trust is void ab initio, as the termination of irrevocable Trust Deed has to be with concurrence of the beneficiaries and in the instant case, beneficiaries were not party to the revocation of the Trust.

24. Instead of dealing with the impugned amendments, it is deemed appropriate to first deal with revocation of Trust Deed because if it is 2742-500/2005 & 901/2007 found that the Trust Deed has been validly revoked then the question of the impugned amendments being illegal would pale into insignifance. The Trust Deed of 29th March, 1989 (Annexure P-1) has the pension scheme as a Schedule to it and Clause- 22 thereof provides for abrogation of the Trust in question. This Clause reads as under:-

25. No doubt, the Trust is irrevocable but the Scheme appended thereto contains Clause 22, which permits abrogation/ termination of the Trust and the Pension Scheme floated by it. Instant case comes within the 2742-500/2005 & 901/2007 ambit of Clause 22.1(b) of the Trust Deed. The Deed of Revocation (Annexure-1) of the Trust of 29th March, 1989 placed on record by third respondent reveals that not only Directors of MMTC but the Trustees, which included the nominees of MMTC Employees' Unions as well as that of MMTC Officers' Association were party to the revocation of Trust. Clause 4 of the Revocation Deed (Annexure-1) clearly stipulates as under:-

27. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the revocation of the Trust vide Deed of Revocation of 21 st November, 2005 does not suffer from any arbitrariness or irrationality. Rather this Court finds that revocation of irrevocable Trust is in consonance with its covenants.

2742-500/2005 & 901/2007

28. Once the revocation of the Trust Deed is found to be valid then the challenge to the impugned amendments loses its significance. In any case, petitioners are not in any way affected by the first amendment. So far as second amendment of the year 1998 is concerned, I find that the same is duly approved by respondent No.4-CIT and the second amendment is based upon the Actuarial Report furnished by M/s India Life which discloses deficient of `11.17 crores and in view of wide disparity between the contribution made and the annuities payable, the operation of the Pension Scheme was rightly found to be not viable. The bona fides of the Trustees cannot be doubted because in September, 2001, a Sub-Committee was appointed to look into revival of the Pension Scheme and it was not feasible to revive it due to financial constraints. The third amendment was brought in to bring parity amongst the employees but this amendment has not been approved by respondent No.4-CIT. This by itself would not render this amendment void for the reason that the approval of MMTC is there to this amendment and non- approval of respondent No.4-CIT would only deprive the Trust of the tax benefits. This Court is of the considered opinion that third amendment impugned herein had a rational and thus, cannot be said to be perverse.