Nani Gopal Dutta Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 1996
Petitioner: Nani Gopal Dutta
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 10611 of 1996
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 08, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16, 226 – FR-56(B) – Continuance of service upto age of 60 years – Institution not a work-charge establishment – Tribunal finding no material to conclude that it was not an industrial establishment – Employee continuing upto 60 years pursuant to interim order. Held that without going into controversy of it being industrial establishment, workman, be not denied benefit of pension on enhanced pay of two years. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant before us was an employee in small industries services institute at Calcutta. He claimed that he is entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years in terms of rule 56(B) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922.
2. The tribunal before whom he made that claim noticed that for becoming a workman in such an establishment, he has to establish that he is employed in industrial or a work-charge establishment. It was accepted that the institute where the appellant is working is not a work-charge establishment. It was not very clear from the material placed before the tribunal as to whether it amounted to an industrial establishment or not. However, the tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the said establishment is not an industrial establishment. In these circumstances, the view taken by the tribunal though appears to be correct, the facts in this case are rather glaring.
3. The appellant having continued in employment upto the age of 60 years pursuant to the interim order granted and he having received the full benefits of salary, we do not think it would be appropriate to deny him of the benefits of pension arising from enhanced pay for that period of two years either. In special features of this case, we think such a relief should be ordered irrespective whether the said institute is an industrial establishment or not. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. The appellant before us was an employee in small industries services institute at Calcutta. He claimed that he is entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years in terms of rule 56(B) of the Fundamental Rules, 1922.
2. The tribunal before whom he made that claim noticed that for becoming a workman in such an establishment, he has to establish that he is employed in industrial or a work-charge establishment. It was accepted that the institute where the appellant is working is not a work-charge establishment. It was not very clear from the material placed before the tribunal as to whether it amounted to an industrial establishment or not. However, the tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the said establishment is not an industrial establishment. In these circumstances, the view taken by the tribunal though appears to be correct, the facts in this case are rather glaring.
3. The appellant having continued in employment upto the age of 60 years pursuant to the interim order granted and he having received the full benefits of salary, we do not think it would be appropriate to deny him of the benefits of pension arising from enhanced pay for that period of two years either. In special features of this case, we think such a relief should be ordered irrespective whether the said institute is an industrial establishment or not. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
