SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS WRIT PETITION THOUGH LISTED FOR ORDERS, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL representing THE PARTIES, IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL DISPOSAL AND HEARD them ACCORDINGLY. ( 2 ) THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS WRIT PETITION ARE NEITHER IN CONTROVERSY NOR DEBATED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE BRIEFLY SET OUT BELOW IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTIONS OF the PARTIES AS TO BOW THE 'reckonable SERVICE' IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD. ONE K. ESHWARAPPA WAS WORKING AS FIELD ASSISTANT IN VANIVILAS CO-OPERATIVE sugar FACTORY-THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN, HAVING JOINED SERVICE ON 1-5-1972. DUE to SHORTAGE OF RAW-MATERIALS, THIRD RESPONDENT LAID OFF THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEES including THE SAID ESHWARAPPA FROM 3-4-1985. DURING THE PERIOD OF LAY-OFF THE SAID eshwarappa-THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER DIED ON 14-7-1988, the PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HER HUSBAND WAS A SUBSCRIBER TO THE EMPLOYEES provident FUND AND FAMILY PENSION FUND. AS SUCH, SHE WAS ENTITLED LO GET FAMILY pension ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. SHE APPLIED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT for PAYMENT OF FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS. THE SECOND, RESPONDENT BY HIS LETTER DATED 1990 CALLED UPON THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION REGARDING him OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF FAMILY PENSION FUND OF HER LATE HUSBAND K. SHWARAPPA. ACCORDINGLY, THIRD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED RELEVANT FORMS GIVING information. HOWEVER, THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY LETTER DATED 12-7-1990 AGAIN CALLED upon THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LAY-OFF OF THE husband OF THE PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM 3-4-1985. IN RESPONSE, THE THIRD respondent CLARIFIED THAT SERVICE OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA WAS LAID OFF WITH EFFECT FROM 3-4-1985. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED, THAT DURING LAY-OFF, THERE WAS ONLY TEMPORARY cessation OF WORK AND THERE WAS NO TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE. THUS, THE THIRD respondent INFORMED THE SECOND RESPONDENT THAT LATE K. ESHWARAPPA HAD PUT IN reckonable SERVICE AS DEFINED IN PARA 2 (F) OF THE EMPLOYEES' FAMILY PENSION scheme, 1971 (FOR SHORT THE 'scheme' ). THEREAFTER, THE SECOND RESPONDENT CALLED upon THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT FORM NO. 11 (FPF) SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO RELEASE payment. FINALLY, UNDER THE LETTER DATED 28-3-1991/5-4-1991 (ANNEXURE-D) THE second RESPONDENT RELEASED THE FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA. THEREAFTER, THE SECOND RESPONDENT CALLED upon THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT FORM NO. 11 (FPF) SO AS TO ENABLE THEM TO RELEASE payment. FINALLY, UNDER THE LETTER DATED 28-3-1991/5-4-1991 (ANNEXURE-D) THE second RESPONDENT RELEASED THE FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA. THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY reasons ADDRESSED THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 27-6-1991 (ANNEXURE-E) TO THE DEPUTY director OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), III FLOOR, G. P. O. BUILDING, BANGALORE, copy OF WHICH WAS SENT TO THE PETITIONER. UNDER THE SAID LETTER THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF audit AND ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) WAS DIRECTED TO RETURN THE CONNECTED DOCUMENTS ALONG with BOTH HALVES OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF SMT RATNAMMA STATING THAT the CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR PENSION. THIS LETTER BROUGHT SHOCK TO THE PETITIONER. SHE MADE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS SEEKING CLARIFICATION FROM RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS to WHY THE FAMILY PENSION PAYMENT HAS BEEN STOPPED. SHE DID NOT GET ANY clarification OR INFORMATION. SHE ONLY LEARNT THAT AS HER HUSBAND WAS UNDER LAY-OFF when HE DIED, THE SECOND RESPONDENT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAD NOT completed RECKONABLE SERVICE AS PER PARA 2 (F) OF THE SCHEME. HENCE, SHE HAS FILED this WRIT PETITION WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 27-6-1991 (ANNEXURE-E) AS NULL AND VOID AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT HER HUSBAND LATE K. ESHWARAPPA HAD PUT IN RCCKONABLE SERVICE AS PER PARA 2 (F) OF THE SCHEME FOR THE purpose OF GRANTING FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS. ( 3 ) THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT FILED THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS. ( 4 ) SRI SHYLENDRA KUMAR, LEARNED SENIOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSELFOR RESPONDENTS-1 AND 2, DOES NOT DISPUTE THE STATEMENT OF FACTS MADE, BUT HE ONLY submitted THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2 APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT LATE K. ESHWARAPPA HAD NOT COMPLETED THE RECKONABLE SERVICE. ( 5 ) THE ONLY POINT THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:whether THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER HAD COMPLETED 'reckonable SERVICE' TO grant BENEFITS UNDER THE SCHEME TO THE PETITIONER? ( 6 ) SRI P. N. KATHAVI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, URGED THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2 WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED LETTER-ANNEXURE-E ARBITRARILY AND IN violation OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AT ALL GIVEN AN opportunity TO HAVE HER SAY IN THE MATTER. ( 6 ) SRI P. N. KATHAVI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, URGED THAT RESPONDENT NO. 2 WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED LETTER-ANNEXURE-E ARBITRARILY AND IN violation OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AT ALL GIVEN AN opportunity TO HAVE HER SAY IN THE MATTER. HAVING RELEASED THE FAMILY PENSION EARLIER to THE PETITIONER AFTER COMPLETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO the SECOND RESPONDENT TO STOP THE PAYMENT OF THE FAMILY PENSION TO THE PETITIONER. HE further URGED THAT PLAIN READING OF THE DEFINITION OF'reckonable SERVICE' CONTAINED IN para 2 (F) OF THE SCHEME, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS lay-OFF, IS INCLUDED IN 'reckonable SERVICE'. AS SUCH THE SECOND RESPONDENT committed AN ERROR IN ISSUING THE IMPUGNED LETTER-ANNEXURE-E. ( 7 ) THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENLS-1 AND 2 WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE ANYCONVINCING REPLY AS TO WHY 'reckonable SERVICE' SHOULD NOT TAKE IN ITS FOLD THE PERIOD during WHICH THERE WAS LAY-OFF LOOKING TO THE VERY DEFINITION CONTAINED IN PARA 2 (F) of THE SCHEME. ( 8 ) BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SCHEME IS DRAWN FOR CONFERRING CERTAIN BENEFITS OF FAMILY PENSION AND REQUIRES TO BE APPLIED TO SERVE THE PURPOSE FOR which IT IS DRAWN. ( 9 ) IT IS USEFUL TO EXTRACT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS 'lay-OFF AND 'reekonableservice'. SECTION 2 (KKK) OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 DEFINES LAY-OFF AS:"lay-OFF (WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS AND COGNATE EXPRESSIONS) MEANS THE failure, REFUSAL OR INABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF COAL, POWER or RAW MATERIALS OR THE ACCUMULATION OF STOCKS OR THE BREAKDOWN OF MACHINERY OR natural CALAMITY OR FOR ANY OTHER CONNECTED REASON TO GIVE EMPLOYMENT TO A workmen WHOSE NAME IS BORNE ON THE MUSTER-ROLLS OF HIS INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT and WHO HAS NOT BEEN RETRENCHED. XX XX XX". XX XX XX". THE TERM 'reckonable SERVICE' IS DEFINED IN PARA 2 (F) OF THE SCHEME AS:'"reckonable SERVICE' MEANS SERVICE RENDERED BY A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY pension FUND IN RESPECT OF WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS ARE PAYABLE UNDER THIS SCHEME and INCLUDES ANY PERIOD OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO WAGES ARE DRAWN BY such MEMBER ON ACCOUNT OF TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, STRIKE, lock-OUT OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON, OF A SIMILAR NATURE OR otherwise, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS (BOTH THE MEMBERS AND employer's SHARES) ARE PAYABLE BY DIVERSION FROM BIS PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT AS provided IN SUB-PARAGRAPH (2-A) OF PARAGRAPH 9 OF THIS SCHEME AND ALSO INCLUDES any PERIOD OF SERVICE IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAGES ARE DRAWN BUT NO CONTRIBUTIONS are PAYABLE IN TERMS OF SUB-PARAGRAPH (4) OF PARAGRAPH 9 AND WHICH SHALL BE deemed TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPHS 28, 31 AND 32 OF THIS scheme: provided THAT NO PERIOD OF SERVICE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO WAGES ARE DRAWN BY a MEMBER: (I) AFTER THE NAME OF THE MEMBER HAS BEEN STRUCK OFF FROM THE ROLLS OF THE employer OF THE MEMBER; OR (II) XX XX XX (III) AFTER THERE CEASES TO BE ANY AMOUNT IN THE FUND OR IN THE PROVIDENT FUND OF an EXEMPTED ESTABLISHMENT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, LYING TO THE CREDIT OF THE member CONCERNED. SHALL BE TREATED AS RECKONABLE SERVICE. " (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) ( 10 ) IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE THIRD RESPONDENT HAD LAID-OFF THE SERVICES OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH EFFECT FROM 3-4-1985 DUE TO SHORTAGE OF RAW materials AND THATK. ESHWARAPPA DIED ON 14-7-1988 DURING THE PERIOD OF LAY-OFF. HE was ALSO A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY PENSION FUND UNDER THE SCHEME. 'reckonable service' MEANS SERVICE RENDERED BY A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY PENSION FUND IN RESPECT of WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS ARE PAYABLE UNDER THE SCHEME AND IT ALSO INCLUDES ANY PERIOD of SERVICE IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO WAGES ARC DRAWN BY SUCH MEMBER ON ACCOUNT OF temporary CLOSURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, STRIKE, LOCK-OUT OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY, OR FOR any OTHER REASON, OF A SIMILAR NATURE OR OTHERWISE. LAY-OFF MEANS THE FAILURE, REFUSAL or INABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF COAL, POWER OR RAW MATERIALS OR the ACCUMULATION OF STOCKS OR THE BREAKDOWN OF MACHINERY OR NATURAL CALAMITY OR FOR any OTHER CONNECTED REASON TO GIVE EMPLOYMENT TO A WORKMEN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, admittedly THERE WAS LAY-OFF ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF RAW MATERIALS. THUS, THERE was TEMPORARY CESSATION OF WORK DURING THE PERIOD OF LAY-OFF, WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT to TERMINATION OF SERVICES OF LATE K. ESHWARAPPA. ( 11 ) SERIES OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS INDICATE THAT TBESOCIAL BENEFICIAL LEGISLATIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE BENEFIT TO THE CLASS OF people FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THEY ARE MADE, SO AS TO MAKE THEM TO SERVE THE OBJECT intended TO BE ACHIEVED. IN THE CONTEXT, THE TERM 'reckonable SERVICE' TAKES WITHIN ITS fold THE PERIOD OF LAY-OFF ALSO INASMUCH AS 'reckonable SERVICE' INCLUDES ANY PERIOD of SERVICE IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO WAGES ARE DRAWN BY A MEMBER ON ACCOUNT OF temporary CLOSURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, STRIKE, LOCK-OUT OR HAVE WITHOUT PAY, OR FOR any OTHER REASON, OF A SIMILAR NATURE OR OTHERWISE. ( 12 ) THE IMPUGNED LETTER-ANNEXURE-E, ISSUED WITHOUT NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER IS PLAINLY IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IT CANNOT be SUSTAINED. AS SUCH, IMPUGNED LETTER-ANNEXURE-E COULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED ON THIS ground ALONE AND REMITTED THE CASE TO TBE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH ON merits AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO HAVE HER SAY IN THE MATTER. I have COME TO THE FIRM CONCLUSION THAT 'reckonable SERVICE' INCLUDES THE PERIOD during WHICH NO WAGES ARE DRAWN BY A MEMBER ON ACCOUNT OF TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF the ESTABLISHMENT DUE TO LAY-OFF ALSO. THUS, I HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT LATE K. ESHWARRAPPA-THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER HAD 'reckonable SERVICE' AND THE petitioner IS ENTITLED FOR FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS, WHICH WERE GRANTED TO HEREARLIERBY the SECOND RESPONDENT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I THINK IT UNNECESSARY TO REMIT THE case TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD RESULT IN DELAYING THE proceedings AND PUTTING THE PETITIONER INTO DIFFICULTIES, PARTICULARLY SO WHEN NOTHING more IS TO BE DONE EXCEPT APPLYING LAW TO THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, writ PETITION IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I THINK IT UNNECESSARY TO REMIT THE case TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD RESULT IN DELAYING THE proceedings AND PUTTING THE PETITIONER INTO DIFFICULTIES, PARTICULARLY SO WHEN NOTHING more IS TO BE DONE EXCEPT APPLYING LAW TO THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, writ PETITION IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED. ( 13 ) IN TBE RESULT, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, I PASS TBE FOLLOWING ORDER: (1) THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED. (2) THE IMPUGNED LETTER BEARING D. O. NO. KN/pf/sro/hbl/gab/145/1991, DATED 27-6-1991 ADDRESSED BY THE second RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AUDIT AND ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), iii FLOOR, G. P. O. BUILDING, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-E) IS QUASHED. (3) IT IS DECLARED THAT THE HUSBAND OF TBE PETITIONERLATE K. ESBWARAPPA HAD put IN RECKONABLE SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARA 2 (F) OF THE SCHEME, AS such THE PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS. (4) THE SECOND RESPONDENT SHALL RELEASE THE FAMILY PENSION BENEFITS TO THE petitioner FROM THE DATE THEY WERE STOPPED. (5) THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. --- *** --- .