IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.NO.15835 OF 2010 P.Sambasivam ... Petitioner. vs. 1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai-9. 2. The Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association, No.204, Prakasam Salai, Chennai – 600 108. 3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 37, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. ... Respondents. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant pension taking into account petitioner's service from 1981 as per records available with the respondents 1 & 2 and consequently, directing the 3rd respondent to grant pension during the petitioner's life time. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Appavu For R1 : Mr.M.Devendran For RR2 & 3 : No appearance O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant pension, by taking into account petitioner's service from 1981 instead of 1990. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was employed as a worker under Token No.79, by second respondent, i.e. The Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association, on a monthly salary of Rs.9670/- per month. The petitioner was also a member of Employees' https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Provident Fund and a sum of Rs.541/- p.m. was deducted as employees contribution payable to the Provident Fund. 3. The petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2001. The case of the petitioner is that after retirement, he was not granted pensionary benefit. The petitioner filed W.P.No.39707 of 2006 in this Court, which was disposed off, with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation for consideration of his claim. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner filed a representation on 07.11.2008 and on receipt thereof, a cheque for Rs.11,475/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, sent a legal notice, claiming pensionary benefits, but, the case of petitioner, as depicted in legal notice, was not properly considered, and the benefits were not granted. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that for the purposes of pension, the respondents cannot deny service, rendered by him from 1981 to 1990. 5. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, by placing reliance on Memorandum of Understanding, entered into between the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust and The Madras Port Spillage Handling Workers Association. The factum of settlement is not disputed by the petitioner. In the settlement, it was agreed between the parties as under: "11. The Madras Port Trust agrees to reimburse on the basis of actuals, to the Association, all costs of wages and other emoluments and benefits, such as Provident Fund Contributioin payable to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Workmen's compensation, if injured or killed in the course of employment or as premium payable to the Insurance companies as also for liability for payment of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Productivity Linked Bonus or Ex-gratia, as paid to regular Port / Dock employees, minimum guaranteed work or wages per month, Attendance Allowance, and benefits such as weekly off, leave and holiday with pay, 15 days Earned Leave, 15 Casual Leave and 10 days Medical Leave per annum, per worker-member, holidays with pay, Night Weightage and other benefits as allowed to the Dock workers in the Listed scheme, administered by the Madras Dock Labour Board (excepting grant of pension and House Building Loans), as also salaries to staff and honoraria to the persons who are required to perform clerical and administrative duties, as determined unanimously by the sub-committee of the Executive-Committee of the Association, and after obtaining the prior approval of the Chairman of the Madras Port Trust." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The Memorandum of Settlement is not under challenge. Admittedly, The Madras Port Spillate Handling Workers Association, is an Association. The service rendered in the Association, therefore, cannot be treated to be the service with respondent no.1, in absence of any statutory settlement between the parties, which could be enforced in the Court of Law. It is not disputed that Provident Fund amount, deposited by the petitioner stands paid to him. The petitioner, therefore, has no legal right to claim benefits of service rendered, in violation of memorandum of undertaking, having force of law. 7. In view of the findings referred to above, finding no merit in this petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Chairman Chennai Port Trust, Chennai - 9. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 37, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. 1 cc To Mr.G.Appavu, Advocate, SR.14280. 1 cc To Mr.M.Devendran, Advocate, SR.13985. W.P.No.15835 of 2010 NSM(CO) RVL 22.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/