M A HARIDAS Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants challenge Ext.P14 order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents 2 and 3 approached the Labour Court contending that their services were terminated with effect from 31-12-1997 due to superannuation. The claimants were served with Ext.Pl notice dated 28-12-1997 that their services are terminated due to superannuation with effect from 31-12-1997 and they can collect their salary upto 31-12-1997 and retiral benefits from the office. They contended that they were illegally terminated, as there is no retirement age in the establishment. Therefore, they cannot be superannuated at the age of 60. The claimants had filed claim petitions for gratuity before the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act. As stated in the petition, they filed representations before the Labour Officer alleging denial of employment. On his advice the claim petition was filed before the Labour Court. But, petition was filed only for retrenchment compensation and notice pay payable under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was allowed by the Labour Court by Ext.P14 order. Contention of the writ petitioner was that both the above workers met the managing partners and submitted that they are overaged as they completed 60 years of age and they cannot work and, therefore, they should be relieved and then only their termination order was issued. It is their further contention that when the workers complained to the Deputy Labour Officer, Labour Officer was also informed that termination orders were issued on the basis of their request and if they are willing to work, they can work in the company and there is no denial of employment or illegal retrenchment. Therefore, he did not send a report to the Government for referring the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication.

(2.) The learned single Judge ordered as follows:

(3.) The Tribunal was justified in upholding the plea of the workman that since the age of superannuation from the service of the establishment was not fixed by the writ petitioners, they are entitled to the benefits due. It was accordingly that the Labour Court relied on materials including those referable to proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act and quantified the amounts due to the two workmen as Rs. 22,286/- and Rs. 22,619/- respectively retrenchment compensation.