Pawan Hans Ltd. vs Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana on 17 January, 2020

caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Pawan Hans Ltd. vs Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana on 17 January, 2020Author: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 353 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 381 of 2019)

M/S. PAWAN HANS LIMITED & ORS. …APPELLANTS

Versus

AVIATION KARMACHARI SANGHATANA
& ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the

contractual employees of the Appellant­Company are entitled to

provident fund benefits under the Pawan Hans Employees

Provident Fund Trust Regulations or under the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Act”) and the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (“EPF
Date: 2020.01.17
16:20:21 IST
Reason:

Scheme”) framed thereunder.

1
2. The background facts in which the present Civil Appeal has

been filed are as under :
2.1 The Company was incorporated on 15.10.1985 under the

Companies Act, 1956, and is registered as a Government of

India company with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi. The

Government of India holds 51% shareholding in the

Appellant­Company and the remaining 49% is held by Oil

and Natural Gas Company Ltd. (ONGC).
The Company was incorporated with the primary

objective of providing helicopter support services to the oil

sector for its off­shore exploration operations, services in

remote and hilly areas, and charter services for promotion

of tourism. It is classified as a non­scheduled operator

under Rule 134 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
2.2 On 01.04.1986, the Appellant­Company framed and

notified the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust

Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “the PF Trust

Regulations”) for giving provident fund benefits to all the

employees of the Appellant­Company.

Regulations 1.3 and 2.5 of the PF Trust Regulations are

set out hereunder for ready reference:

2
 “1.3 ­ These Regulations shall apply to all the employees of
the Corporation.

2.5. – “Employee” means any person who is employed for
wages/salary in any kind of work, monthly or otherwise, in
or in connection with the work of the Corporation and who
gets his wages/salary directly or indirectly from the
Corporation, and excludes any person employed by or
through a contractor or in connection with the work of the
Corporation but does not include any person employed as an
apprentice or trainee.”

[emphasis supplied]

2.3 On 26.03.1987, the Appellant­Company instituted the

Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust (“PF Trust”)

wherein the management started depositing its share

towards the provident fund contribution with respect to

employees on the regular cadre of the Company;

correspondingly, the regular employees started depositing

the matching contribution with the PF Trust.

2.4 Out of a total workforce of 840 employees, the Company

had engaged 570 employees on regular basis, while 270

employees were engaged on ‘contractual’ basis.

The Company implemented the PF Trust Regulations

only with respect to the regular employees, even though

the term “employee” had been defined to include “any

3
 person” employed “directly or indirectly” under the PF

Trust Regulations.
2.5 The Company having framed its own PF Trust Regulations,

was claiming exemption from the applicability of the EPF

Act and EPF Scheme under Section 16 of the EPF Act.

2.6 On 08.01.1989, the Ministry of Labour, Government of

India, issued a communication to the Central Provident

Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, pertaining to the grant of

exemption to departmental undertakings under the control

of the Central/State Government statutory bodies. The

Central Provident Fund Commissioner was directed to

instruct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners to

carefully review the cases of departmental undertakings

and statutory bodies falling under the categories specified

in Section 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(c) of the EPF Act, and take

further action as indicated in the said letter.

Clause (iv) of the said letter dated 08.01.1989 is of

relevance, and is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“(iv) There may be establishments which employ large
member of casual/contingent staff, who are not entitled to
the benefit of provident fund or pension. The
casual/contingent staff of such establishment will
continue to be covered under the Act, but their regular
employees who are entitled to the benefit of provident fund
or pension should be excluded from the purview of the
Act.”

4
 [emphasis supplied]
2.7 The Central Government, in exercise of the powers under

S.1(3)(b) of the EPF Act, issued a Notification dated

22.03.2001, making the provisions of the EPF Act

applicable to aircraft or airlines establishments employing

20 or more persons, excluding aircraft or airlines

establishments owned or controlled by the Central or State

Government.

The Gazette Notification No. SO 746 dated 22.03.2001

(“Notification”) is extracted for ready reference:­

“ S.O. 746 – In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 1 of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central
Government hereby specifies the following
establishment employing 20 or more persons as the
class of establishments to which the said Act shall
apply with effect from 1st April 2001 namely:
(i) An establishment engaged in rendering courier services;
(ii) An establishment of aircraft or airlines other than the
aircraft airlines owned or controlled by the Central or
State Government.
(iii) An establishment engaged in rendering cleaning and
sweeping services.”
[emphasis
supplied]

The said Notification was brought into force w.e.f

01.04.2001.

2.8 Correspondingly, amendments were made to the EPF

Scheme framed under Section 5 of the EPF Act. Clause 3

5
 (b)(ci) was inserted vide Notification No. S­35016/1/1997­

SS II dated 22.07.2002, by which the EPF Scheme was

made applicable to aircraft or airlines establishments other

than the aircraft or airlines establishments owned or

controlled by the Central or State Government.

2.9 The members of the Respondent­Union made several

representations on 18.09.2012, 29.09.2012, 13.03.2013,

19.11.2014 to extend the benefit of the PF Trust

Regulations since they were directly engaged by the

Company on contractual basis, some of whom were

working for almost 20 years.

The Company failed to respond to the representations.

2.10 Being aggrieved by the inaction of the Company, the

Respondent­Trade Union, filed CWP No.325 of 2017 on

20.12.2016 against the Company praying for the following

reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that the members of the Respondent­
Trade Union and other similarly situated employees,
employed on contract basis by the Appellant­Company are
entitled to the benefit of Provident Fund as per the EPF Act
and the EPF Scheme, and that the Appellant­Company be
directed to forthwith enrol all such eligible contract
employees under the EPF Scheme and deposit their
contribution with the Respondent No. 3­ Regional Provident

6
 Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund
Organisation, from the date they are eligible till remittance,
and thereafter, till they are in the employment of the
Appellant­Company.

(b) Alternatively, the Appellant­Company forthwith be
directed to suitably amend the PF Trust Regulations to permit
the enrolment of contract workers as members of the PF
Trust instituted by the Appellant­Company and to make all
eligible contract employees members of the PF Trust from
their respective dates of entitlement and continue to
contribute amounts to the PF Trust in respect of contract
employees.”

2.11 During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra issued a letter

dated 24.05.2017 to the Company wherein it was stated

that even though the EPF Act would not apply to

establishments owned/controlled by the Central

Government as per S.16(1)(b) and (c), however social

security benefits such as provident fund must be provided

to all “employees/workers who are engaged on

contractual/casual/daily wages basis” since there is no

distinction between a person employed on permanent,

temporary, contractual, or casual basis under S.2 (f) of the

EPF Act.

2.12 The High Court vide the impugned Judgment & Order

dated 12.09.2018 allowed the Writ Petition in terms of

prayer (a), with the direction that the benefits under the

7
 EPF Act be extended to the members of the Respondent­

Trade Union, and other similarly situated employees. It

was held that a liberal view must be taken in extending

social security benefits to the contractual employees. The

High Court directed the Company to enrol all eligible

contractual employees under the EPF Scheme, and deposit

their contribution with Respondent No.3 – Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner from the date they became

eligible till remittance, and thereafter till they are in

employment of the Company. This was to be carried out

latest by 31.12.2018.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, the Appellant­

Company filed the present Civil Appeal.

This Court vide Order dated 14.01.2019 issued notice

and granted stay of the impugned Judgment subject to the

Company depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/­ (Rupees Five

Crores) within 3 months in this Court.

Pursuant thereto, the Company deposited the said

amount on 09.04.2019, which has been invested in a Fixed

Deposit.

8
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and

have considered the oral and written submissions made on

their behalf.
4.1 Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India, appearing for the Appellant­Company inter alia

submitted that:

a) The Company is excluded from the applicability of the

EPF Act since it neither falls under Schedule I of the

EPF Act, nor is it covered by Notification dated

22.03.2001 issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the EPF

Act, since the Notification itself expressly excludes

airline companies “owned or controlled by the Central

Government” from the purview of the EPF Act.

b) The Notification 22.03.2001 was inapplicable to the

Appellant­Company since Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF

Act, excludes an establishment owned or controlled

by the Central Government from the scope of the EPF

Act.

c) The Central Government holds 51% of the

shareholding in the Appellant­Company, and the

Board of Directors of the Appellant­Company have

9
 been appointed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The

Appellant­Company is governed by the guidelines

issued by the Department of Public Enterprises,

Government of India. The Appellant­Company is thus

an establishment owned and controlled by the Central

Government. Even after the EPF Act became

applicable to the airlines industry, the Appellant­

Company being an establishment owned and

controlled by the Central Government, was excluded

from the purview of the EPF Act.

d) The High Court committed a grave error in giving

retrospective application to the provisions of the EPF

Act, i.e., from the date of the members joining the

Respondent­Trade Union, given that several

contractual employees had superannuated, passed

away, resigned, or ceased to be in the employment of

the Company. The extension of benefits under the

EPF Act to contractual employees irrespective of their

status of employment with the Company was wholly

illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside.

10
 e) The members of the Respondent­Union and other

similarly situated employees have already been paid

in full their monthly financial benefits/emoluments.

The direction of the High Court to the Company to

contribute to the provident fund of the contractual

employees would amount to burdening the Company

with twice the liability.

4.2 Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the Respondent­Union inter alia submitted

that:

a) The term “employee” defined by Clause 2.5 of the PF

Trust Regulations is widely defined to cover all

employees, including those engaged on contractual

basis, who are in the direct or indirect employment of

the Company. The members of the Respondent­Union

are in direct employment of the Company, since they

have not been engaged through any contractor. The

contractual workers are paid directly as evidenced by

the pay slips issued by the Company. The benefits

under the PF Trust Regulations, or the EPF Act, are

required to be provided to even contractual employees

11
 from the date of their joining till the date of

remittance.

b) The Company is not controlled by the Central

Government since its affairs are managed and

controlled by a Board of Directors. The Company is

not a company controlled by the Central Government.

The Notification dated 22.03.2001, specified

certain establishments including the airlines industry,

other than airlines owned or controlled by the Central

or State Government, to be covered under the EPF

Act. Consequently, the Company was obligated to

extend the benefits under the EPF Act to all its

employees.

c) The EPF Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, which

has to be liberally construed. The denial of statutory

benefits and entitlements like provident fund to the

members of the Respondent­Union is ex­facie illegal,

arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the

provisions of the EPF Act and the Constitution of

India.

12
5 The issue which arises for consideration in the present Civil

Appeal is whether the Appellant­Company is under a

statutory obligation to provide the benefit of provident fund

to its contractual employees under the PF Trust Regulations

or the EPF Act?
If so, the date from which the aforesaid benefit is to be

extended to the contractual employees.

6 Discussion and Analysis

6.1 It is first required to be seen whether the Appellant­

Company is excluded from the applicability of the provisions

of the EPF Act and the EPF Scheme framed thereunder as

contended by them.

6.2 As per Section 1(3) of the EPF Act, the EPF Act is applicable

to every establishment in which 20 or more persons are

employed, which is either a factory engaged in any industry

specified in Schedule I, or an establishment which the

Central Government may by notification in the Official

Gazette specify in that behalf. Section 1(3) of the EPF Act

reads as:

“Section.1(3) : Subject to the provisions contained in section
16, it applies —

13
 (a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in
any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or
more persons are employed, and
(b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more
persons or class of such establishments which the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify in this behalf:

Provided that the Central Government may, after
giving not less than two months’ notice of its intention so to
do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the
provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such
number of persons less than twenty as may be specified in
the notification.”

[emphasis supplied]

Section 1(3) is subject to Section 16 of the EPF Act.

Sub­section (1) of Section 16 enlists those establishments

which are excluded from the applicability of the EPF Act. As

per clause (b) of sub­section (1), an establishment belonging

to or under the control of the Central or State Government,

and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of

contributory provident fund in accordance with any scheme

or rules framed by the Central or State Government

governing such benefits, is excluded from the purview of the

EPF Act.

Sub­section (1) of Section 16 reads as:

“Section 16. Act not to apply to certain establishment.
–
(1) This Act shall not apply­

14
 (a) to any establishment registered under the Co­operative
Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), or under any other law
for the time being in force in any State relating to
cooperative societies employing less than fifty persons
and working without the aid of power; or

(b) to any other establishment belonging to or under the
control of the Central Government or a State
Government and whose employees are entitled to the
benefit of contributory provident fund or old age
pension in accordance with any Scheme or rule framed
by the Central Government or the State Government
governing such benefits; or

(c) To any other establishment set up under any Central,
Provincial or State Act and whose employees are
entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or
old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule
framed under that Act governing such benefits;

(2) If the Central Government is of opinion that having
regard to the financial position of any class of
establishment or other circumstances of the case, it is
necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions,
as may be specified in the notification, exempt, whether
prospectively or retrospectively, that class of
establishments from the operation of this Act for such
period as may be specified in the notification.”

[emphasis supplied]

This Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v.

1
Sanatan Dharam Girls Secondary School laid down a twin­

test for an establishment to seek exemption from the

provisions of the EPF Act, 1952. The twin conditions are:

1 (2007) 1 SCC 268 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 167

15
 First, the establishment must be either “belonging to” or

“under the control of” the Central or the State Government.

The phrase “belonging to” would signify “ownership” of the

Government, whereas the phrase “under the control of”

would imply superintendence, management or authority to

direct, restrict or regulate.2
Second, the employees of such an establishment should

be entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or

old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule

framed by the Central Government or the State Government

governing such benefits.

If both tests are satisfied, an establishment can claim

exemption/exclusion under Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF Act.

Applying the first test to the instant case, the Central

Government has a 51% ownership in the Appellant­

Company, while the balance 49% is owned by the ONGC, a

Central Government PSU.

As per Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013, a

“Government Company” means any company in which not

less than 51 % of the paid­up share capital is held by the

Central Government. Since 51% of the shares of the
2 Shamrao Vithal Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Kasargode Panduranga Maliya, (1972) 4 SCC 600

16
Appellant­Company are owned by the Central Government,

the first test is satisfied as the Appellant­Company can be

termed as a Government Company under Section 2(45) of

the Companies Act, 2013.

With respect to the second test, it is relevant to note

that the Company had its own Scheme viz. the Pawan Hans

Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations in force. The

Company however restricted the application of the PF Trust

Regulations to only the ‘regular’ employees. The PF Trust

Regulations of the Company were not framed by the Central

or State Government, nor were they applicable to all the

employees of the Company, so as to satisfy the second test.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bandra

issued letter dated 24.05.2017 addressed to the Company

wherein it was stated that the benefit of contributory

provident fund was not being provided to

contractual/casual employees of the Company; and was

directed to implement the provisions of the EPF Act.

The relevant extract from the letter is set out

hereinbelow:
“approximately 370­400 employees have been engaged by
M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. on contract basis in various cadres.

17
 But no social security benefit is being extended to them.
The EPF & MP Act, 1952 under Section 2(f) lays down that
any person employed for wages in any kind of work in or
in connection with the work of the establishment and
includes a worker engaged by or through a contractor.
There is no distinction between a person employed on
permanent, temporary, contractual or casual basis under
Section 2(f) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.
You are therefore, requested to implement the
provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 in respect of all the
contractual/causal employees engaged by M/s Pawan
Hans Ltd. who are still not getting benefits of PF and
Pension.”
[emphasis supplied]

In our view, the Company does not satisfy the second

test, since the members of the Respondent­Union and other

similarly situated contractual workers were not getting the

benefits of contributory provident fund under the PF Trust

Regulations framed by the Company, or under any Scheme

or any rule framed by the Central Government or the State

Government. Consequentially, the exemption under Section

16 of EPF Act would not be applicable to the Appellant­

Company.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the

Company has failed to make out a case of exclusion from

the applicability of the provisions of the EPF Act.

6.3 The next issue which arises for consideration is whether the

members of the Respondent­Trade Union are entitled to the

18
benefit of Provident Fund under the PF Trust Regulations or

under the EPF Act.

Clause 1.3 of the Regulations would show that the PF

Trust Regulations were made applicable to “all employees”

of the Appellant­Company.
Clause 2.5 of the Regulations, defines an “employee”,

to include any employee who is employed for wages/salary

in any kind of work, monthly or otherwise, or in connection

with the work of the Company, and who gets his

wages/salary directly or indirectly from the Company.

Clause 2.5 excludes only a person employed by or through a

contractor in connection with the work of the Company, and

any person employed as an apprentice or trainee.

In the present case, the Respondent­Union submitted

that even though the appointment letters refer to the

employees as ‘contractual’ employees, they were not

engaged through any contractor. They were being paid

directly by the Company, which is evidenced from the pay­

slips issued to them. It was submitted that about 250

contractual employees receive wages directly from the

19
 Company, and are eligible to be included under the PF Trust

Regulations framed by the Company.

6.4 We find that the members of the Respondent­Union have

been in continuous employment with the Company for long

periods of time. They have been receiving wages/salary

directly from the Company without the involvement of any

contractor since the date of their engagement. The work

being of a perennial and continuous nature, the

employment cannot be termed to be ‘contractual’ in nature.

In our considered view, Clause 2.5 of the PF Trust

Regulations would undoubtedly cover all contractual

employees who have been engaged by the Company, and

draw their wages/salary directly or indirectly from the

Company.

6.5 As per Section 2(f) of the EPF Act, the definition of an

‘employee’ is an inclusive definition, and is widely worded to

include “any person” engaged either directly or indirectly in

connection with the work of an establishment, and is paid

wages.3

3 Sub­Regional Provident Fund Office v. Godavari Garments Ltd., (2019) 8 SCC 149 : (2019) 2
SCC (L&S) 483; M/s P.M. Patel & Sons and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (1986) 1 SCC 32.

20
 In view of the above discussion, we find that the

members of the Respondent­Union and all other similarly

situated contractual employees, are entitled to the benefit of

provident fund under the PF Trust Regulations or the EPF

Act. Since the PF Trust Regulations are in force and are

applicable to all employees of the Company, it would be

preferable to direct that the members of the Respondent­

Union and other similarly situated contractual employees

are granted the benefit of provident fund under the PF Trust

Regulations so that there is uniformity in the service

conditions of all the employees of the Company.

6.6 The question which now arises is the date from which the

benefit of provident fund is to be extended to the

contractual employees.

This Court vide Order dated 24.10.2019 had passed the

following Order:

“Provident Fund is normally managed on actuarial basis;
the contributions received from employer and the
employee are invested and the income by way of interest
forms the substantial fund through which any pay­out is
made. For all these years the Fund in question was
subsisting on contributions made by the other employees
and, if at this stage, the benefit in terms of the judgment
of the High Court is extended with retrospective effect, it
may create imbalance. Those who had never contributed
at any stage would now be members of the fund. The

21
 fund never had any advantage of their contributions and
yet the fund would be required to bear the burden in case
any pay­out is to be made. Even if concerned employees
are directed to make good contributions with respect to
previous years with equivalent matching contribution
from the employer, the fund would still be deprived of the
interest income for past several years in respect of such
contributions.
In order to have clear perspective in the matter
and to see if there could be any solution to the problem
as posed above, we call upon the petitioner to depute a
person who is well versed in the matter and who has
been managing the Provident Fund Scheme of Pawan
Hans Limited to have a dialogue with the respondent
No.3 before 15.11.2019 (a representative of the
respondent(s) is also at liberty to remain present during
such discussion) so that a workable solution could then
be presented by such person and the representative of
respondent No.3 before us on the next occasion.
List the matter on 29.11.2019 at 10.30 a.m.”

6.7 The learned ASG submitted that no workable solution could

be worked out at the meeting held between the

representative of the Appellant­Company, Respondent No.3,

and the representative of the Respondent­Union. The

learned ASG however offered that the Appellant­Company

was willing to extend the benefit under the PF Trust

Regulations to the members of the Respondent­Union and

other similarly situated employees, from the date of the

impugned Judgment.

6.8 Respondent No.3 – the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner submitted that since the Company had

22
 remained out of the purview of the EPF Act, the direction to

deposit contribution from the date of eligibility of the

contractual employees till the date of remittance was not

workable, and could not be sustained.

7 After hearing the parties at length, and in light of the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we affirm the

Judgment & Order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Bombay

High Court in W.P.No.325/2017 holding that members of

the Respondent­Union are covered by the EPF Act. However,

we modify the direction of the High Court to grant the

benefits under the EPF Act, and direct that the members of

the Respondent­Union and other similarly situated

contractual employees be enrolled under the Pawan Hans

Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations so that there

is uniformity in the conditions of service of all employees of

the Appellant­Company.

Furthermore, the direction of the High Court to pay the

contribution from the date of their eligibility till the date of

remittance is also modified in terms of the directions given

in this Judgment.

23
8 We pass the following directions to effectuate the reliefs

granted:

(i) The interests of justice would be best subserved if the

benefit of Provident Fund is provided to the members

of the Respondent­Union, and other similarly situated

contractual employees, from January 2017 when the

Writ Petition was filed before the High Court.

(ii) Respondent No.3 ­ the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi

Bhawan, 341 Bandra (E), Mumbai is directed to

determine and compute the amount to be deposited by

the Company on the one hand, and the members of

the Respondent­Union and other similar situated

employees on the other hand. The computation would

be required to be made for the past period i.e. January

2017 to December 2019;

(iii) The Company shall be liable to pay Simple Interest @

12% p.a. on the amount payable by it towards

contribution of provident fund for the past period, i.e.,

24
 January 2017 to December 2019, as per Section 7Q of

the EPF Act,1952 ;

(iv) The statement of computation made by Respondent

No.3 will be placed before this Court within a period of

12 weeks from the date of this Judgment, and

thereafter the matter will be listed for issuance of

necessary directions, so that the amount can be

remitted from the deposit made before this Court,

directly to the PF Trust;

(v) The employees will be obligated to deposit their

matching contribution for the past period i.e. January

2017 to December 2019, within a period of 12 weeks

along with interest @ 6% p.a., after the contribution of

the Company has been remitted to the PF Trust;

(vi) With respect to the period from January 2020

onwards, the Company and the members of the

Respondent­Union as also other similary situated

employees, will make their respective contributions as

per the PF Trust Regulations;

(vii) The benefit shall not be extended to those employees

who have superannuated, expired, resigned, or ceased

25
 to be in the employment of the Company on the date of

this Judgment ;

(viii) We consider it appropriate to award Costs of

Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lacs) to the Respondent­

Union towards litigation expenses incurred in the High

Court and in this Court.

(ix) After the aforesaid amounts are disbursed, the balance

amount lying deposited in this Court shall be refunded

to the Appellant­Company.

The present civil appeal along with all pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

…………………………………J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)

…………………………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi;
January 17, 2020.

26