The Karnataka High Court has refused to grant a stay on an appeal against City Civil Court's order of April 8 directing the trustees and Britannia Industries to pay the outstanding pension dues as per fund rules to the petitioners within the next two months.
However, it has extended the deadline of payment of pension by another month, said Ashit K Sarkar, retired senior vice president- HR and representative of Britannia's Pensioners Welfare Association.
With High Court vacations ahead, the next hearing will be in June when the parties may argue further. The April 8 order had upheld the demand of pensioners that fund trustees of Britannia have been incorrect in not paying them pension as per the applicable approved Pension Fund rules from 2003.
The court, according to Sarkar, had said in the order, the payment is to be done after adjusting the interim payments made as per its January 2009 order and had called for a compliance report from the defendants. This was the second time the City Civil Court decided in favour of the waiting pensioners, of whom 18 are dead. The Pensioners Welfare Association has over 200 members.
The battle between the two, dates back to 2003 after Britannia's Pensioners Welfare Association said Britannia is trying to change its pension rules from defined benefit to defined contribution, retrospectively. It also said the proposed changes were against the objectives and rules of the Pension Fund.
Britannia had then stated: "In an interim order, the City Civil Court, Bangalore, has accepted Britannia's proposal for paying pension consistent with the company's stated position. While the matter is sub-judice, Britannia welcomes this judgment, which is in line with the company's offer to every eligible pensioner.", and is payable based on defined contribution."
The battle between the two, dates back to 2003 after Britannia's Pensioners Welfare Association said that Britannia is trying to change its pension rules from defined benefit to defined contribution, retrospectively. It also said the proposed changes were against the objectives and rules of the Pension Fund.
