Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22) In the said matter, the petitioner was employed as a Clerk in the Burmah Shell Oil Storage Ltd and retired at the age of 50 after qualifying for a pension on April 1, 1973. He was covered by a scheme under the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952. The pensionary provision was also applicable for the Burmah Shell employees depended on the terms of a Trust Deed of 1950 under which a pension Fund was set up and regulations were made for its administration. Regulation 13 and 15 entitled the petitioner to pension and contained the formula for quantification. Regulation 13 has a significant clause: "less the authorized deductions specified in Regulation 16, namely..." The Regulation 16 reads thus, :

By virtue of Regulation 13, the Petitioner was entitled to a pension of Rs.165.99 subject to certain deductions which form the controversy in the matter. By letter dated September 25, 1974, the employer (Burmah Shell ) explained that from out of pension of Rs.165.99 two deductions were authorised by regulation 16. One such deduction was based on Regulation 16(1) because of Employees' Provident Fund Payment to the pensioner and the other rested on Regulation 16(3) on account of payment of gratuity. The Hon'ble Apex Court after elaborating the objects behind bringing the enactments in respect of Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity held that: