AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj K. Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Â
This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
i. To set aside the impugned Award dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Adjudication
Case No. 107 of 2008 contained in Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to pay Salary to the petitioner w.e.f. 1 march 2006 and February 2008 and all the
consequential benefit including Bonus, Provident fund, Gratuity, leave encashment etc. thereto.
According to the case setup in the writ petition, petitioner was appointed as Block-in-charge in M/s Pawan Farm w.e.f. 01.02.1993. At the time
of his appointment, no retirement age was prescribed by the employer. In the year 1994, M/s Pawan Farm was converted into M/s Pawan Poplar
Ltd., thus management of the employer company was changed in the month of November 1994. On 31.01.2006, employer issued a notice to petitioner
informing him that since petitioner would complete 58 years of age on 15.02.2005, as such he will stand superannuated and relieved from duty w.e.f.
28.02.2006. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by the employer on 11.02.2006 intimating the petitioner that date of completing his age of
superannuation, be read as 15.02.2006 instead of 15.02.2005, in the earlier notice dated 31.01.2006. Â Feeling aggrieved by the said retirement notice,
petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital. The said reference
was registered as Adjudication Case No. 15 of 2007. Subsequently, the case was transferred to learned Labour Court, Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar and was renumbered as Adjudication Case No. 107 of 2008. English translation of the dispute referred for adjudication to learned
Labour Court is as follows:-Â
Whether the retirement notice dated 31.01.2006 issued by the employer to the workman before his completing 60 years of age, which shall become
effective from 28.02.2006, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? And with which other particular?Â
Learned Labour Court, after considering the entire material on record, decided the reference against petitioner vide award dated 30.11.2012.Â
Learned Labour Court has come to the conclusion that none of the employees of M/s Pawan Poplar Ltd. was permitted to serve after completion of
58 years of age, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the retirement notice dated 31.01.2006 given to the petitioner. Learned Labour Court
has supported its conclusion by following reasons:-
i) Letter of demand submitted by the employees in the year 2006 to M/s Pawan Poplar Ltd. for increasing age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years
and the decision taken thereupon that age of superannuation shall remain 58 years.Â
ii) Application dated 13.01.2006 submitted by the petitioner seeking extension of service, till December, 2006 in view of his family problem. iii) Failure
on the part of the petitioner to bring any evidence on record to show that any other employee of the company was permitted to continue in service,
after completing 58 years of age. Â
The finding returned by learned Labour Court is based on evidence available on record and can not be said to be perverse. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award dated 30.11.2012. Moreover, petitioner has not placed any
evidence before learned Labour Court as well as before this Court, which suggest that any employee was permitted to continue in service, after
completing 58 years of age. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, with the impugned award dated 30.11.2012. The findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on evidence, which
do not require any interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Â
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Â