LPA/970/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 970 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8027 of 1999 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10913 of 2008 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 970 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= IPCL RETIRED EMPLOYYES ASSO - Appellant(s) Versus INDIAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LIMITED & 17 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PR THAKKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 18. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 06/10/2008 LPA/970/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) This Appeal, preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, arises from the order dated 24th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No.8027 of 1999. The appellants - writ petitioners are the employees of the erstwhile Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the IPCL”), the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Pending the petition, the IPCL has been taken over by the Reliance Petro Investment Limited. The said Reliance Petro Investment Limited is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The writ petition has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. We agree with the learned Single Judge. Mr. Thakkar has submitted that the appellants are retired employees of advanced age. They have otherwise a meritorious case. LPA/970/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT The appellants claim benefit of the IPCL Employees' Superannuation Fund Scheme. It is not in dispute that said scheme was introduced in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said scheme, however, was not approved by the provident fund authorities. In other words, the IPCL was not granted exemption from the provisions of the Act. As the scheme was never made operative, the claim of the appellants for the benefit under the said scheme of 1994 is misconceived. No such relief could be granted to the appellants. Mr. Thakkar has submitted that pending the proceeding for exemption under the Act, the IPCL had implemented the said scheme. The deductions had been made from the salaries of the appellants. The said money is still lying with the IPCL. If any part of the salary of the appellants is lying with the IPCL or any other authority, the appellants shall have to approach the appropriate authority for recovery of the said money. No relief LPA/970/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT can be granted in the present Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of. [Ms. R.M.DOSHIT, J.] [K.M.THAKER, J.] shekhar/-