1. As the question involved in both these petitions are with regard to grant of benefit under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the point involved is similar in both these petitions, they arc being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner, Babu Singh, Babu Lal and Narayan Prasad were working in the establishment of M/s. CIMMCO Birla Ltd., (Steel Foundry Division), Gwalior. All the three petitioners while working in the establishment were members of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 formulated under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and they were also members under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. Petitioner, Babu Singh was initially appointed on 6-10-1965 whereas petitioner No. 2 Babulal was appointed on 23-5-1966 and Narayan Prasad was appointed on 7-5-1969 respectively. By orders passed on 28-3-1982 and 2-4-1982, Services of all the three petitioners were brought to an end. Being aggrieved by the orders of termination, all the three petitioners filed applications before the Labour Court under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and when the matter was pending before the Labour Court when on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the employees and the employer, all the three cases filed by the petitioners were disposed of by the Labour Court vide orders passed on 8-12-1990. The order passed by the Labour Court in the case of Babu Singh and Babulal arc filed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 and in W.P. (S) No. 523/2003, order passed by the Labour Court is filed as Annexure P-1, dated 8-12-1990. The order passed by the Labour Court on the basis of the compromise was to the effect that the employer, respondent No. 3 has agreed to reinstate the petitioners in service and they will be reinstated in service with continuity of service. However, for the intervening period, no back wages would be paid to them. After the orders were passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners were taken back in service in January, 1991. Thereafter, on account of closure of the respondent/establishment, petitioners took voluntary retirement from service in accordance with Voluntary Retirement Scheme formulated by the company and all of the ceased to be in employment, in the case of Babu Singh from July, 1995, in the case of Babulal from 1-11-1996 and in the case of Narayan Prasad from 28-3-1982.

3. After retirement of the petitioners they claimed benefit of pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 which has been refused to them by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that petitioners do not have the qualifying service of 10 years required to be a member of the said scheme and that after their termination, the earlier membership under the provisions of the Provident Fund and Pension Scheme enjoyed by them was terminated inasmuch as the amount of Provident Fund and Pension Scheme was paid to them and they have accepted the same, their membership was terminated and as they are treated to be reemployed in the year 1991 and as new account number and membership was allotted to them. Accordingly, the pension is being denied to the employees in all the cases on the ground that after their earlier termination, their contribution was not paid for the intervening period 1982 to 1990 when the matter was pending before the Labour Court, after reemployment, they were enrolled as new members and their previous membership came to an end after payment of all the dues and after their subsequent enrollment, they have only qualifying service of 4 years which being less than the required qualifying service of 10 years, they are not entitled to any benefit.

4. Shri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners taking me through various provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 so also the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 submitted that a person who was already a member of the Scheme of 1971 and who was in employment as on 16-11-1995 would automatically become a member of 1995 Scheme and merely on the ground that the contribution has been withheld by them, they can not be deprived of the benefit. It is the case of the petitioners that once the order of termination ceased to have effect after the decision of the Labour Court and when the petitioners were reinstated in service with continuity of service, there was no reason for depriving the benefit of the pension scheme. It was stated by Shri Sharma that in case of petitioners, Babu Singh and Babulal, the amount withdrawn by them was deposited with interest and in the case of Narayan Prasad, he is willing to deposit the amount.

5. Shri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners inviting my attention to the provisions of Paragraph 18 of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1971 and the provisions of Paragraph 19 argued that once a member is allotted an account number under the Family Pension Scheme, he retains the allotted number under the Scheme and when he is re-employed in any other establishment, the earlier membership continues and it is the mandatory duty of the employer to seek the particulars of the membership including the account number and intimate to the Provident Fund Commissioner about the same. It was emphasised by Shri Sharma that in view of the aforesaid provision, the employer in the present case has committed violation of the statutory scheme and merely on the ground that no employees contribution was deposited, so also on the ground that petitioners earlier membership was withdrawn, benefit of the Pension Scheme is being denied to the petitioners. Referring to the provisions of Paragraph 16-A of the Scheme of 1995, Shri Sharma argued that the statute gives a guarantee of family pension under the Scheme and the same can not be denied to the petitioners for want of non - compliance of the provisions by the employer. Accordingly, placing reliance on the following judgments :--

(1) Andhra University v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 509.

(2) Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India and Anr., (1981) 1 SCC 449.

(3) S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and Anr., (2003) 1 SCC 184.

(4) Kamla Bai v. Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur and Ors., 1992 MPLJ 214.

(5) Raghunath v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr., 2002 Lab. 1C 2501.

(6) Smt. Vijay Mala Bhonsale and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr., 2002 (I) MPJR SN 31; and (7) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore v. Smt. Vijay Mala Bhonsle and Ors., 2003 (97) FLR 1176.

It was argued by Shri Sharma that denial of benefit is unsustainable. It was submitted by him that the Pension Scheme being a beneficial legislature floated for the purpose of advancing the cause of working class should receive liberal construction and construction employed by the Provident Fund Organisation can not be accepted.

6. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri Singhal, learned Counsel for the respondent/Provident Fund Organisation argued that once the petitioners withdrew the entire benefit after their termination from service, they ceased to be members of the Scheme and their membership commences afresh when fresh account numbers were allotted to them after their reemployment, and therefore, for the purpose of calculating the continuous service of 10 years, the period has to be reckoned after reemployment and not prior to that and if the same is done, petitioners are not entitled to the aforesaid benefit. Referring to the orders passed by the competent authority on 3-5-2001 vide Annexure P-1 filed in W.P. No. 2152/2001, Shri Singhal submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondents have not committed any error which warrants interference by this Court.

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that the interpretation given by the Provident Fund Organisation to the effect that the petitioners are reemployed at the first instance is wholly misconceived. It is not a case where the petitioners have been reemployed in the establishment after their services were terminated in the year 1982, on the contrary, the order passed by the Labour Court clearly indicates that they were reinstated in the service with continuity of service and only benefit denied to them was back wages for the intervening period. Apart from the aforesaid, the entire period was treated to the continuous for all other purposes except payment of back wages. Accordingly, it is not a case where petitioners are reemployed as indicated in the impugned order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Provident Fund Organisation, on the contrary after reinstatement, the petitioners are deemed to be in continuous service without any break.

8. That being so, it is to be held that the petitioners were in continuous employment and there is no break in service for all other purposes except payment of back wages.

9. Having held so, the question would be as to whether benefit can be denied to the petitioners merely on the ground that before their reinstatement in the year 1991 they withdrew the amount deposited till that period and were allotted new membership. If the provisions of Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 is seen, it clearly stipulates that once a person is enrolled as a member, he retains the membership for all times to come till he serves the employer. Even if he ceases to be employee of a particular employer and as soon as employment commences with another employer, he is entitled to carry his membership with the new employer and in fact, there is no termination of his membership. In the present case, when the petitioners were members of the scheme before their termination and they were continued to be members after their reinstatement. It is not known as to what was the reason which compelled the employer and the Provident Fund Organisation to refund the benefit of the scheme and enroll the petitioners as new members. In fact, there was no occasion for doing so. Further the petitioners were allowed to deposit the amount withdrawn by them and in fact, Babu Singh and Babu Lal deposited the amount. The same could have been accepted and considering the total length of service which comes to more than 10 years, benefit of pension scheme should have been extended to them.

10. In the case of Som Prakash Rekhi (supra), the Supreme Court has considered the concept of grant of benefit of gratuity and provident fund and it has been observed by the Supreme Court that in the cases of pension and contribution under the Provident Fund Scheme, liberal interpretation should be evolved and the Courts should interpret the provisions in such a way that it given beneficent construction and advances the cause for which the scheme has been formulated. Similarly, in the case of Andhra University (supra), the provisions of Provident Fund Scheme have been considered and the Supreme Court has indicated that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the schemes formulated therein are beneficial piece of social welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the well-being of the employees and the Court will not adopt a narrow interpretation which will have the effect of defeating the very object and purpose of the Act. Similar views with regard to construction of Pension Scheme and Gratuity Scheme to be liberally interpreted is followed by the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee (supra).

11. It is in the back drop of this settled principle that the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the question of granting benefit to the petitioners is to be considered in the present case.

12. The case of Raghunath (supra) relied upon by Shri Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners is identical in nature to the present case. That was also a case where the employees services were terminated and thereafter he was reinstated on the basis of certain orders and while considering the question of grant of benefit under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 in Paragraphs 11 and 12, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the word "reinstatement" itself implies that past services have to be counted as continuous service and considering the same on the ground that because back wages was not paid or that the establishment has not deducted the contribution the argument of similar nature advanced by the department was rejected and it was ordered that on the employee depositing the amount already received by him, direction was given to make available the benefit of the Pension Scheme to the employee concerned. There is no reason why the same view should not be taken in the present case and similar direction given. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Vijay Mala Bhonsle (supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench in the case relied upon by the petitioner and in that case also various judgments of the Supreme Court have been considered and it has been held that the Pension Scheme of 1971 had merged into the Pension Scheme of 1995 and the Pension Scheme of 1971 can be carried into the Pension Scheme of 1995.

13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position that emerges from a combined reading of the judgments replied up by Shri Alok Sharma, it is to be held that the action of the respondents in denying the benefit to the petitioners only on the ground that they had withdrawn the earlier benefit and that they had less than 10 years of service is unsustainable.

14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to make available the benefit under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to Babu Singh and Babu Lal, petitioners in W.P. No. 2152/2001 as they have already deposited the earlier contribution. In case it is found that the amount deposited by them is less than the required amount, they may be directed to deposit the remaining amount within a reasonable time and on the same being done, the benefit of Pension Scheme be extended to them. In the case of Narayan Prasad, petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 523/2003, it is directed that he be directed to deposit the amount withdrawn by him with interest within a reasonable time and on the same being done, the benefit of Pension Scheme be extended to him. It is made clear that all the petitioners will be required to deposit the amount already received by them alongwith interest as per rules and on the same being done, they shall be entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme.

15. Necessary action be taken for settling the claim and making payment of pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of necessary forms and papers from the petitioners under the Scheme and after deposit of the amount by the petitioners as has been indicated hereinabove.

16. Petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.