UMAKANT S DESHPANDE Vs. G E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Letters Patent Appeals are filed against a common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10th May, 2000, by which the learned single Judge disposed of a group of Special Civil Applications by a common order. So far as L.P.A.No.346 of 2001 is concerned, the same is filed by the party-in-person U.S. Deshpande and the remaining Letters Patent Appeals are filed by Advocate Mr.N.K. Thakkar. We have heard at length the party-in-person as well as Mr.N.K.Thakkar. Mr.Thakkar has given written submissions which are also taken on record.

(2.) The main question which is required to be decided in these Letters Patent Appeals is whether Accounts Officers under the Electricity Board fall within the definition of `workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, by its judgment and Award dated 15.7.1988, decided that the Accounts Officers are `workmen', within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and, thereby, entitled to the benefits of the Settlement under Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act. By the said settlement, workmen employed by the Board are permitted to continue in the Board till they attain the age of 60 years. The respondent-Board challenged the said Award by filing Special Civil Application Nos. 5797 to 5802 of 1988, 6869 of 1989, 2924 of 1990, 8144 and 12476 of 1993. In the meanwhile, certain petitions were directly filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by some Accounts Officers, who had not approached the Industrial Tribunal and, therefore, the contention before the learned single Judge was that they were entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 60 years. Those petitions are Special Civil Application Nos. 331 and 1595 of 1989, 350, 1013, 1015 and 1074 of 1990, 733 of 1991, 7644 of 1992 and 2590 of 1993. It seems that after the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal on 15.7.1988, the Gujarat Electricity Board, over and above challenging the said judgment and Award, also amended the Statutory Regulations laying down that all Officers in the Class I service, including Accounts Officers, shall retire at the age of 58 years and hence, the Accounts Officers, who had to retire after coming into force of the said amendment, filed the third group of petitions, viz., Special Civil Application Nos. 8508, 9850 and 10661 of 1996. The aforesaid groups of petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge and by order dated 10.5.2000, Awards of the Industrial Tribunal, by which the said Tribunal had held that the Accounts Officers are `workmen' and the retirement age of the Accounts Officers under the Gujarat Electricity Board is 60 years, were quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the petitions filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board, being Special Civil Application Nos. 5797 of 1988 to 5802 of 1988, 6869 of 1989, 2924 of 1990 and 8144 and 12476 of 1993 were allowed by the learned single Judge and rule was made absolute in those petitions with no order as to costs. So far as Special Civil Application Nos. 331 and 1595 of 1989, 350, 1013, 1015, 1074 of 1990, 733 of 1991, 7644 of 1992, 2590 of 1993 and 8505, 9850 and 10661 of 1996, which were filed by the Accounts Officers, are concerned, they were dismissed and rule was discharged in each of the matters. The learned single Judge, however, observed in the order that those Accounts Officers, who continued in service till the age of 60 years on the strength of the interim orders / final Awards of the Industrial Tribunal shall not be required to refund any monetary benefits which were drawn by them by rendering services till the age of 60 years.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, party-in-person U.S. Deshpande filed Letters Patent Appeal No.346 of 2001, challenging the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.1595 of 1989. Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 140, 462, 463, 464 and 465 of 2001 are filed against the order passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 5720 of 1988, 2924 of 1990, 1015 of 1990, 9850 of 1996 and 8508 of 1996. Accordingly, the present six Letters Patent Appeals are filed against the common order of the learned single Judge. In all these appeals, the contention on the part of the appellants is that the appellants were `workmen' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Accounts Officer is a `workman' and, therefore, as per the settlement, the workman was entitled to serve upto 60 years and he was not required to be superannuated at the age of 58 years.