ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. The case came up at the stage of vacating the interim order already granted. The writ petition is of the year 1992. Both the learned counsel urged the Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits.
2. I heard either Counsel. The important point which arises for consideration is as to whether the 2nd respondent is entitled for the terminal benefits under the special voluntary retirement scheme which was invoked at the time when he sought for voluntary retirement or a latter scheme by which time his application for voluntary retirement was not considered. Admittedly, the first scheme of voluntary retirement came into force from 26-2-1988. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed an application seeking the benefits under the said scheme on 24-3-1988. This was kept pending till 8-8-1988. Meanwhile, another special voluntary retirement scheme was introduced with effect from 25-7-1988. The dispute is as to whether the 2nd respondent, who is the ex-workman of the petitioner-management, is entitled for the terminal benefits under the first scheme announced on 26-2-1988, or under the scheme announced on 25-7-1988. It is true, as contended by Mr. M. Narhari, that the application was filed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the first scheme but the same was not considered and was kept pending for more than four months. It was only on 8-8-1988, the application was considered but, meanwhile, the second special voluntary retirement scheme was announced. Mr. M. Narhari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the application by the 2nd respondent was filed under the first scheme and acceptance will only mean that the benefits under the first scheme are available to the 2nd respondent and not the benefits of the second scheme, as the second scheme was not opted by him. He argues that, atleast the 2nd respondent ought to have filed an application stating that he opts under the later scheme dated 25-7-1988. I reject his contention. The beneficial provisions, that too, in favour of workmen, should be construed liberally having regard to the object and intendment of the Labour Legislation. Labour Legislation is a welfare legislation and the terminal benefits is a part of the scheme. If under the latter scheme there is more benefit than the earlier scheme and when the application of the 2nd respondent was not at all considered and accepted before the second scheme came into force, the only conclusion which can be arrived at, particularly in case of a Welfare Legislation like this, is that the workman shall be entitled to the benefits which were available under the latter scheme as it was operative as on the date of accepting of voluntary retirement i.e., 8-8-1988.
3. In view of what is stated supra, I hold that the terminal benefits under the second scheme, which have been deposited, shall forthwith be paid to the 2nd respondent on proper identification and through a crossed cheque. If the amount is deposited in any Bank, it is needless to mention that the interest accrued on the deposited amount shall also ensure to the benefit of the 2nd respondent.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
