Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The petitioners stated that the action of the respondents is highly inhuman and contrary to the scheme and the present amendment is prejudicial to the main object of the scheme and hence the amendment made to the Trust Deed is illegal and unsustainable and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

8. The respondents 1 and 2 filed Counter affidavit and submitted that consequent to the approval of scheme of amalgamation by Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide its order dated 22.08.2007, as a result of which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the two companies, namely Air India Ltd., and Indian Airlines Limited now stands resolved without being wound up resulting in consolidation of business of the two companies a new entity i.e National Aviation Company of India Limited has been formed. It is further submitted that the scheme of amalgamation being effective from 27.08.2007, all legal or other proceedings which were to be initiated by or against Indian Airlines Ltd., shall now be initiated by or against NACIL.

16. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the Petitioners having accepted the fact that it is purely a self-contributory scheme, cannot object to the amendment which the trust was forced to do. It was also done after taking the employees representatives into confidence. The situation was unforeseen and the amendment was due to the compelling reasons as explained above. He further submit that there are no merits in the Writ Petition. T https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

26. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the pension scheme amended and as a result pension at minimum of 40% of the last drawn pay was shirked off, reducing it nearly to 5% to 10% of last drawn pay and that too retrospectively is not correct. Further the Trust Deed amendment came into effect from 01.04.2003 and in such case, it is applicable only to members who enter the scheme on or after 01.04.2003. But the respondents had made it applicable to existing members also, which according to learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of their submissions placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 404 [Air India Employees Self- Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme Vs. Kuriakose V.Cherian and others]. In the above said decision it is held by the Honourable Supreme Court that amendment cannot be said to be prospective in operation merely on ground that right of the retiree only after amendment of the scheme were being affected as the amount already paid to them under the unamended scheme was not being asked to be returned. The Supreme Court in the above decision, held that the impugned judgment is unassailable and thus dismissed the appeals filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Air India Employees Self Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme. It is held in paragraph 9 of the decision that the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the amendment to the trust deed to the extent it applies in future is legal and valid but the amendment cannot apply to the employees who have retired before the date of amendment and such employees shall continue to receive pensionary benefits as before, namely, the benefits which existed at the time of amendment.