Retirees who left service before 31 August 2016 cannot claim additional benefits under the 2018 wage settlement.

The petitioners, retired driving instructors of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, retired on 28 February 2015 and 31 March 2015, respectively.

They sought differential gratuity, earned leave, provident fund, pension commutation and other retirement benefits under Clause 5 of the wage settlement dated 4 January 2018, made under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, together with 18% interest.

The respondents stated that the petitioners’ grade pay had already been revised from Rs. 2,600 to Rs. 4,300 and their consequent retirement benefits revised and paid; they also contended that the settlement’s other benefits applied only to employees in service on the relevant date.

The Court considered the petitions together.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to differential retirement benefits under Clause 5 of the 4 January 2018 Section 12(3) wage settlement, despite having retired in 2015.

Whether any further differential benefits, including gratuity and earned leave, were payable under the settlement to employees who had retired before the settlement’s applicable service-date threshold.

Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides the statutory framework for the wage settlement relied upon by the petitioners.

Clause 5 of that settlement concerned notional pay fixation for Security Supervisors, Drivers or Conductors in the Rs. 4,300 grade pay with effect from 1 September 2010.

The Court treated the settlement’s other relevant benefits as applying only to employees who remained in service on 31 August 2016.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that the respondents had already implemented Clause 5 for the petitioners by revising their grade pay to Rs. 4,300 and settling the resulting revised retirement benefits; therefore, no further relief was warranted on that aspect.

As to other claimed differences, including gratuity and earned leave, the petitioners had retired in 2015 and thus did not meet the Court’s stated requirement of being in service on 31 August 2016.

The Court accordingly held that the settlement did not entitle them to those further benefits.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.