People's Democracy

 CITU WRITES TO SC CHIEF JUSTICE

Pension Scheme Judgement Reserved For 28 Months!

A SUPREME COURT bench completed on May 1, 2001 the hearing in a case relating to the employees’ pension scheme, a social security measure, which is of vital concern to trade unions and workers in the country, and reserved the orders. Even after passage of 28 months, the case remains shelved in the apex court as a ‘judgement-reserved’ case.

The CITU has termed this as an aberration in the judicial system in the country and appealed to the chief justice of India to step in to correct this aberration. It recently released to the press the text of an open letter addressed to the CJI, with W R Varada Rajan, secretary, CITU as the signatory. The text of the letter follows.

“We are addressing this open letter to you after deep thought and much hesitation.

We are encouraged to venture on this effort by the strong commitments expressed by your lordship on the occasion of swearing in as chief justice of India that your lordship would address “the many areas including the gray areas” in the judicial system and ventilated a strong view that “judges who fell short of the expected qualities had no place in the judiciary.” Your lordship had also asserted: “There are some aberrations which we will have to tackle to the logical conclusion” (The Hindu, December 20, 2002)

We have also noted certain pronouncements made in some recent cases, dealt with by the members of the collegium of apex court judges, though with lot of anguish and pain over the context and content of such pronouncements.

A five judge constitution bench, comprising the illustrious predecessor of your lordship, noted on December 17, 2002 that “it is the duty of all courts to go on with matters on their boards even in the absence of lawyers” due to their being on strike.

A two judge bench of the apex court had, while dealing with the strike related issues of government employees in Tamil Nadu, emphasised that "in the prevailing situation… we have to be fully aware of our duties, responsibilities and effective methods of discharging them” and also exhorted the virtue of doing “some more work honestly, diligently and efficiently” to be “appreciated by…. people at large”.

It is our belief and expectation that our judiciary may not intend these assertions to remain mere platitudes and virtues exalted from a high pedestal but may strongly commend them to be practiced.

Just with this belief, we wish to draw the benign attention of your lordship to a sordid fact, which we consider to be part of the aberrations and gray areas prevalent in our judicial system.

On July 9, 2002, representative of six central trade unions, submitted a request to the then chief justice of India seeking an appointment for a delegation on their behalf to make a representation on a matter concerning one of the important social security measures, viz. the employees pension scheme 1995, a matter pending the judicial verdict of the Supreme Court of India. The undersigned was one among them.

We are not sure whether the request was brought to the notice of the chief justice of India. But, the office of the chief justice of India did make some inquiries. In response thereto, a brief note was submitted on August 12, 2002 to the office of the chief justice of India.

The matter, which the petitioners desired to represent to the chief justice of India, related to a special leave petition (No. 22316/97) challenging the employees pension scheme, 1995, which has been pending the judicial verdict of the Supreme Court of India (for over fifteen months then and twenty-eight months now), after the process of hearing in the case was concluded by May 4, 2001.

The employees pension scheme 1995, introduced by the government of India, was challenged in different High Courts by several trade unions. While some High Courts had granted interim stay, the Madras High Court had delivered a final judgement upholding the scheme. The Supreme Court, while taking up the SLP for hearing, ordered transfer of all related cases in different High Courts and clubbed them all together for a composite hearing and disposal. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Rajendra Babu and Justice Balakrishnan hear the case. The final hearing was concluded on May 1, 2001. All the parties were advised to make written submissions by May 4, 2001. And the case stands reserved for judgement till now.

As the government of India, which formulated the scheme, is a party to the case, an organisation of the retired employees in one establishment approached the government for intervention in the matter. They have been replied to by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, which is the implementing agency of the scheme, that they had “already requested the Central Agency Section in the Supreme Court for getting the judgement pronounced expeditiously.” Attorney general of India, when approached similarly, had advised that any of the advocates on record for the parties can approach the apex court.

We are addressing this open letter in the hope that your lordship will view such incidents of judgement-reserved cases, lingering on indefinitely without pronouncement of verdict in the apex court, cry for some way towards “logical conclusion.” We are confident that your lordship will ensure that the judicial system in the country also finds effective methods of discharging the duties and responsibilities bestowed on it. We request you to kindly appreciate that it is the duty of all courts not only to go on with matters on their boards but also with matters “on the shelf with the orders reserved.” As “justice delayed in justice denied,” we trust your lordship will view that timely pronouncement of the orders in heard cases is among the qualities expected of judges who have their place in the judiciary. Lastly, we are sure that your lordship will steer the apex judiciary to perform the functions expected of it honestly, diligently and efficiently, in manner to be appreciated by people at large.

We are also given to understand that in the event of any one of the judges on the bench that heard the case ceasing to hold office in the apex court, the case will have to go through a fresh hearing, ab initio, by a reconstituted bench. If such eventuality occurs, unfortunately, it will result in huge cost and further delay for the parties before the apex court.

We are conscious that on matters which are sub judice, the chief justice of India is not expected to entertain any delegation to make a representation, in keeping with the propriety of the high office the chief justice of India holds.

We are addressing this open letter not to represent on the merits of the case but appeal to your lordship highlighting the need to render justice and that in time.

6 TU’S WANT TO MEET CHIEF JUSTICE

Six major trade unions have sought an appointment with the chief justice of India so as to make a joint representation on the employees pension scheme 1995, a social security measure, that is a matter of immediate concern pending the judicial verdict of the Supreme Court of India.

The signatories  are  W R Varda Rajan (CITU), Parduman Singh (AITUC), Hasubhai Dave (BMS),  A D Nagraj (HMS), G Sanjeeva Reddy (INTUC) and Sankar Saha (UTUC-LS ). (INN)