Judgment :- 1. W.P.No.39321/2004 is filed by the Management of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., challenging the impugned award passed by the learned Central Government Labour Court, Chennai in CCP.No.32/1998 dated 29.10.2004 which held that the 2nd respondent in this writ petition-D.Ramanamma-widow wife of the ex-employee-Late D.Kutumba Rao was having pre-existing right, computed a sum of Rs.13,429/- as the money value of the benefits payable due to D.Ramanamma-widow. W.P.No.22180/2011 is filed by D.Ramanamma widow challenging the dismissal of C.P.No.3/2007 dated 25.1.2010 wherein the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai has held that there was no pre-existing right on the part of the widow wife of the ex-employee to file a Claim Petition. Therefore, with the consent of both parties, both the writ petitions were taken up for common disposal. 2. (i) Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank in W.P.No.39321/2004 submitted that one late D.Kutumba Rao husband of the 2nd respondent–D.Ramanamma was employed as a workman in ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd., which was later on taken over and renamed as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., after putting in a long service of 38 years and 8 months, retired on 01.01.1997 and subsequently passed away on 2.8.1997. During his life time the pensioner had opted for the benefits given under Rule 12(iv) of the Pension Scheme by shifting his pension benefits from Rule 12(iii). In view of this, the Bank by its letter dated 27.9.1997 advised the widow that the Bank is sanctioning a pension of Rs.344/- per month with effect from 1st January, 2002. But the widow made a representation to the bank on 10.12.1997 to continue the monthly pension payment of Rs.1,033/- to her till the 1st day of January 2002, from which date the widow became eligible for widow’s pension. But the said request was refused by the bank. However, challenging the refusal by the bank, the widow filed Claim Petition in CCP No.32/1998 claiming a sum of Rs.13,396/-as arrears of pension in terms of Bank’s Pension Rule as well as under the settlement dated 5.3.1986 and for the period from 1.8.1997 to 31.8.1998 at Rs.1,033/- per month. The said Claim Petition No.32/1998 was allowed. As against that the bank has filed W.P.No.39321/2004. (ii) During the pendency of W.P.No.39321/2004, another Claim Petition No.3/2007 was filed by the widow claiming arrears of pension due to the widow for the subsequent period, namely, 1.9.1998 to 1.1.2002. 3. The said Claim Petition No.32/1998 was allowed. As against that the bank has filed W.P.No.39321/2004. (ii) During the pendency of W.P.No.39321/2004, another Claim Petition No.3/2007 was filed by the widow claiming arrears of pension due to the widow for the subsequent period, namely, 1.9.1998 to 1.1.2002. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the bank taking a stand that the widow’s husband was covered by “ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd Indian Staff Pension Scheme & Rules” and the pension is paid in accordance with the said Pension Scheme. The sub-clause 12(iv) in clause 12 was amended on 19.07.1989 and the widow's husband ex-employee was well aware of it. Further, it was stated that the Pension Scheme has two options, either to choose Rule 12(iii) or Rule 12(iv). The employee opted for Rule 12(iv). As per Rule 12 (iv) of the Pension Scheme at the time of retirement, a member will have an option to request the Trustees in writing that the Actuarial value of the Pension payable to him as per Rule 12(iii), be utilized to purchase a Pension Annuity with return of capital on death of the Pensioner, and thereby accepting an Actuarial reduction in the monthly pension payable thereof, during the course of his own lifetime as detailed in LIC I Circular Ref No.G&S/PKM/127, Circular No.362. This option will also be made available to all existing Pensioners, provided they opt in writing within three months of date of approval of the Deed of variation by the Income Tax authorities. This benefit would be effective from 1.4.87 or any other date as decided by LIC 1 in this regard. Since the widow’s husband-Kudumba Rao opted for Rule 12(iv) of the Pension Scheme, he was paid with the pension from 1.1.97 at the rate of Rs.1,033/- per month till 31.08.1997 as he died on 2.8.1997. Further, it was stated that the widow of the ex-employee was also paid with a sum of Rs.1,03,300/- on 17.11.1997 being return of capital under rule 12(iv) of the Pension Scheme. Therefore, the widow-D.Ramanamma will be eligible only for Widows pension from 01.01.2002 under Rule 12(iv) which was also paid to her regularly, therefore, the Claim Petition No.3/2007 needs to be rejected. 4. The question involved in the writ petitions is whether the widow wife is entitled to compute the monetary benefit as claimed by her. 5. Therefore, the widow-D.Ramanamma will be eligible only for Widows pension from 01.01.2002 under Rule 12(iv) which was also paid to her regularly, therefore, the Claim Petition No.3/2007 needs to be rejected. 4. The question involved in the writ petitions is whether the widow wife is entitled to compute the monetary benefit as claimed by her. 5. (i) Originally the bank framed Pension Rules that were also approved by the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the bank had also taken a pension policy with LIC of India. It may be mentioned herein that the pension is a non-contributory benefit for the employees in a sense the bank alone will make contribution to the superannuation fund. When an eligible employee retires from the service of the bank, the value of the life pension will be assessed on the basis of average of basic salary and Dearness allowance for the period of 12 months preceding from the date of retirement at the rate of 1/60 of such amount for every year of service. At the time of leaving the service of the bank every pensioner has to indicate as to which plan of pension available with LIC he would opt for whether the plan under Rule 12(iii) or the plan under Rule 12(iv). Accordingly, the petitioner's husband had opted for Rule 12(iv) as against Rule 12(iii) of the Pension Scheme on 31.12.1996. It must be mentioned herein that the Pension Scheme under Rule 12(iv) is an alternative to pension under Rule 12(iii) in the sense the pension plan under Rule 12(iv) is not an addition to pension plan under Rule 12(3). As a matter of fact, when the deceased husband of the petitioner had exercised option under Rule 12 (iv) till 01.8.1997 the petitioner had received pension at Rs.1,033/- per mensum. When he died on 02.8.1997, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,03,300/-, being return of capital without any protest. This has been admitted by the petitioner during her cross-examination. Therefore, when the petitioner's husband during his life time had opted to enjoy the benefit under Rule 12(iv), the petitioner, after the death of her husband cannot make any claim under Rule 12(iii) and she is entitled to claim for widow pension from 1.1.2002 onwards. This has been admitted by the petitioner during her cross-examination. Therefore, when the petitioner's husband during his life time had opted to enjoy the benefit under Rule 12(iv), the petitioner, after the death of her husband cannot make any claim under Rule 12(iii) and she is entitled to claim for widow pension from 1.1.2002 onwards. Moreover, the admission made by the petitioner widow during her cross-examination before the Tribunal also makes the present case very clear that when her husband who retired from service had received the benefit at the rate of Rs.1,033/- per month and further admitted that he had received a sum of Rs.1,03,300/-being return of capital without prejudice also clearly goes to show that no more claim under Rule 12(iii) can arise in favour of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the learned Tribunal also rightly held that the claim of the petitioner is not based on any pre-existing right or any pre-determined right, because it is not a matter arising incidental to the commutation of the monetary benefits. Moreover, the petitioner's husband and the petitioner have received the benefits arising under Rule 12(iv), while so, after the death of the petitioner's husband, she cannot once again leave Rule 12(iv) and ask for the benefit under Rule 12(iii). (ii) Ex.R1 showing the confirmation of option made by the petitioner's husband under Rule 12(iv) clearly shows the pensioner had opted for the benefit flowing from Rule 12 (iv) of the Pension Scheme. Further, a receipt of acknowledgement dated 17.11.1997 carrying the left hand thumb impression of the petitioner Mrs. D.Ramanamma acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,03,300/-being the full and final settlement of her share of the amount payable by Life Insurance Corporation of India under Group Annuity Scheme on the death of her husband late Mr.D.Kutumba Rao, Pensioner No.4897 of the branch also further shows that the petitioner had received the benefit of the scheme under Rule 12(iv). D.Ramanamma acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,03,300/-being the full and final settlement of her share of the amount payable by Life Insurance Corporation of India under Group Annuity Scheme on the death of her husband late Mr.D.Kutumba Rao, Pensioner No.4897 of the branch also further shows that the petitioner had received the benefit of the scheme under Rule 12(iv). However, as this document was not filed before the lower court, the order in CCP No.32/98 dated 29.10.2004 has been passed disbelieving the case of the bank, therefore in the interest of justice the above mentioned two documents, Ex.R1 and the copy of the acknowledgment dated 17.11.1997 clearly indicating the case of the bank that the petitioner's husband had opted for the benefit confirmed under Rule 12(iv) of the Pension Scheme, are relied on by this Court, on this basis the findings of the Labour Court holding that the petitioner is entitled to widow pension of Rs.344/- per month with effect from 1.1.2002 is upheld. 6.(i) Before parting with, it may be mentioned that the plan in Rule 12(iii) is one package, when the plan in Rule 12(iv) is another package, therefore, both benefits cannot be given to one person, indisputably when the deceased husband had exercised his option under Rule 12(iv) of the Pension Rules, hence, W.P.No.39321/2004-writ petition filed by the Bank is allowed by setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal in CCP.No.32/1998 dated 29.10.2004 as there is no pre-existing right for the widow to file a petition under section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No costs. For the reasons mentioned above the order passed in C.P.No.3/2007 dated 25.1.2010 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai is upheld. Accordingly, W.P.22180/2011 filed by the widow stands dismissed. No costs.