In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that employers cannot deny pension benefits on the basis of insufficient service or contribution if the delay in reinstatement of an employee—pursuant to a tribunal award—was due to the employer’s own fault. The decision was delivered by Justice Rajesh Shankar while hearing L.P.A. No. 362 of 2024 titled M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Kailash Chandra Mukherjee.
Background of the Case
The respondent, an employee at the Barora Area of M/s BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.), was retrenched along with other workmen on 19.12.1983. This led to an industrial dispute raised by the workers’ union, eventually referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT issued an award directing BCCL to reinstate the workers with effect from 22.12.1983 and also grant back wages.
In compliance with the tribunal’s order, a settlement was reached between BCCL and the workers’ union, and BCCL agreed to reinstate the respondent from 21.02.1992. However, the actual reinstatement and confirmation of service came much later—on 01.02.2015, when the respondent was appointed as General Mazdoor (Surface), Category-1. Despite deductions made from his salary towards the pension scheme, upon his retirement on 30.06.2016, he was denied pension. Gratuity and provident fund dues were paid, but pension benefits were withheld.
Respondent’s Legal Stand
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking release of his pension from the retirement date along with arrears. The Single Judge allowed the writ, noting that the respondent had completed more than ten years of service, which is the minimum qualifying service under the pension scheme. The judge ruled that his service must be counted from 21.02.1992, as per Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 27.06.2014.
BCCL’s Appeal and Arguments
BCCL challenged the Single Judge’s order, arguing that the respondent was not eligible for pension under the Coal Mines Pension Scheme (CMPS), 1998, since:
- He had not rendered actual service for 10 years.
- He did not make 120 months of contributions toward the pension scheme.
BCCL contended that they had already made a one-time pension payment as per Para 10(4) of the CMPS, 1998, and no further dues were pending.
Respondent’s Counter Argument
The respondent submitted that as per the 2014 settlement, he was deemed to be notionally reinstated from 21.02.1992, and his service should be counted from that date. He emphasized that deductions toward pension had been made from his salary and that any deficiency in contribution was solely due to the employer’s delay in reinstatement.
High Court’s Observations and Verdict
The High Court noted that treating the respondent’s appointment from 12.07.2014 would violate the CGIT’s award, which called for reinstatement—not fresh appointment. The Court stressed that the employer’s delay in reinstating the respondent led to the shortfall in the qualifying service period.
Justice Shankar stated that:
- The respondent would have completed 10 years of pensionable service had he been allowed to work as per the 1992 award.
- The employer cannot benefit from its own lapse and deny pension for the period it prevented the employee from working.
- The 120-month contribution requirement under CMPS would also have been fulfilled if the employer had acted in a timely manner.
Final Order
The Court directed:
- The respondent must deposit his share of pension contribution for the qualifying period within four weeks.
- BCCL should forward the contribution (along with its own share) to the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation (CMPFO).
- CMPFO must fix and release the pension, along with arrears, within one month of receiving the contributions.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by BCCL was dismissed.
Key Takeaway:
This judgment underscores that employers are accountable for delays in reinstatement and cannot deny pension benefits if such delay impacts an employee’s qualifying service period. The ruling is a vital precedent in safeguarding workers’ post-retirement entitlements.