In view of the office report dated 2nd December, 2009, service upon respondent no. 1 is deemed sufficient. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent no.1-workman even in the revised reading of the list.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation against the award of the Labour Court, Kanpur dated 22nd July, 1993 passed in Adjudication Case No. 152 of 1991. The workman concerned was retired on attaining the age of 58 years to be precise on 31st March, 1990. He raised an industrial dispute stating therein that he had to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Before the Labour Court, Kanpur both the workman and employer placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 91 of 1991 (Balata Prasad vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow & Ors.,) dated 14th December, 1992 in support of their respective case and no other evidence was led by either of the parties. The Labour Court on the basis of Division Bench Judgment of this Court referred to above, noticed that amendment made in the Standing Order on 12th April, 1991 was prospective in nature and would apply to the workman, who would retire subsequent to the said date. In view of the applicable Standing Orders, it has been held that on 31st March, 1990, the age of retirement as was prescribed was 60 years and therefore, retirement of the workman on 31st March, 1990 on attaining the age of 58 years has been held to be illegal. Award has been made directing that he shall continue in service till he attained that age of 60 years with consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that employees of three workshops only mentioned in the order of the Court alone would be entitled to the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years. The workmen other than those of three workshops were not entitled to the said benefit. It is contended that since the workman in the dispute giving rise to the present writ petition was not employed in the aforesaid three workshops, he was not entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years.
The contention so raised cannot be accepted by this Court. From the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 14th December, 1992, it is apparently clear that in 1978, the Corporation amended the Standing Order applicable to the Central Workshops and provided the age of retirement as 60 years. These amendments were also made applicable to Juhi and Chunniganj Depots Workshops of the Corporation. It is with reference to these amendments in the Standing Order that the claim of employees of Central Workshop, Juhi and Chunniganj Depots/Workshops of the Corporation, was considered in special appeal. In the present writ petition there is no averment or pleading to the effect that the workshop/depot where the workman was working, the amendments in the Standing Order had not been made applicable. Consequently in absence of any such pleading or averment this Court is not in a position to hold that the finding of the Labour Court that on the date of retirement i.e. 31st March, 1990 the age of retirement qua the workman concerned 60 years, is incorrect. In the opinion of the Court the Division Bench Judgment of this Court has to be applied on the facts stated and noticed before this Court as well as before the Labour Court. In absence of proper pleadings qua amendment made in the Standing Order in the year 1978 having not been enforced qua the depot or workshop where the workman was working, this Court finds that the Labour Court has rightly held that the amendment made in 1978 in the Standing Order will be applicable qua the petitioner and he shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
The present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010 Sushil/-