Dear friends,

We have been working for the SVRS 2004 Retirees from the date of our SVRS in 2004, when all the Unions and associations have betrayed us, in getting the Arrears for the period we actually worked. These so called Organisations who project themselves as the pioneers of protecting the Working Class have ditched us, by a clandestine understanding with the Management, who were for, giving us the legitimate Arrears, got that portion of amount to their share, thereby getting more percentage of increase to the employees who were in service that time. We were never against the serving employees but denying one section of employees who worked in the industry and got out of the industry, enabling the industry to reduce the management expenses and survive, at their instant and giving the other is not good. The SVRS was not our demand, but an offer from the Management to reduce manpower and get stability. Afterall we have worked for more than 30years in average to bring the industry to a respectable level. 

The organisations of unions and associations forgot our sacrifice and driven us to the courts, where even after a struggle of 15 years, when no unions or Association of officers, not even thought of us, but treated us as enemies when we visited the offices. Now All these, are things of the Past.

Why we are bringing these to the memory of our members is because some of our members, taking side with some Whatsapp group, accusing us that we are preventing them from getting some benefit by filing a contempt petition in Supreme court, on our case of 5 years notional credit, which we lost recently in 2018, by not giving NOC from our Advocate in Delhi. Many mails  and  whatsapp messages were sent to us to give the same to them, as if we are standing on prestige. 

Now let us come to the reasons for our hesitation in giving the NOC to the Group which came up recently in and around Pune. 

Before explaining the reasons we would like to enlighten our members about the term Contempt in the legal language. 

In any  legal case, Contempt comes only when the Court orders some benefit to be paid and the same was not honored by the other party, and it becomes contempt. 

In our case of 5 years notional credit, there is no order to pay any money to the Association, where as it is contrary that we have no right to claim the notional credit. 

Then where comes a Contempt? So when there is no Contempt, we initially decided, not to give any NOC. 

The Whatsapp group, is claiming that it would get 100% PF to all the SVRS optees, by filing the contempt case in Supreme Court. Initially we were taken aback by this claim, and again and again we went through the judgment and could'nt find any reason. We discussed with our Advocates and we got rebuked, not to waste their time. 

We should explain that pension is only a second benefit which we got by surrendering our Company's contribution to PF, to create Pension Fund, so as to enable the company to pay Pension as second benefit, and it is optional. Those who opted  for PF got their own contribution and company's contribution to PF as their retiral benefit. Those who opted for pension got their own contribution to PF and Pension as their retiral benefit.

Now where is the question  of getting 100% PF comes, when you have already given consent to part with the Company's Contribution to PF to create Pension Fund, so as to get Pension at the time of Retirement..

Is there any directive from the Supreme court in its part of Judgment para?

All Judgments have five parts. 1) Prayer of the petitioner 2) Argumments made in favour of the Petitioner's prayer 3) the counter arguments by the  Respondent to deny the claim of the Petitioner. 4) Judges will give their reasoning for taking the decision by quoting different case laws 5) Court's Order(Judgment). A Contempt case comes only on part 5 of the judgement when it is not honoured by the Respondent. Is there any contempt?

Please think aloud whether there is any contempt here and then go with the Whatsapp group  which is canvassing for contempt. We have the responsibility to explain our members the reasons and we have done so. 

We discussed in our EC, and the EC decided to give the NOC to the Group or individual who desired to file a contempt, and accordingly we instructed our Advocate to give the same when approached. 

Why we gave NOC is because a section of our members were requesting us not to stand on prestige and give the NOC.  

Even though we are in principle disagree in filing a contempt case, just to prove that we are not standing on prestige, but with a strong appeal to our members, that there is  no contempt in this case and don't fall to the misguided idea.

with regards

nagarajan

nisvrrea