CHAIRMAN, GEB Vs. SUNIL DHANRAJ KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein and the respondents in Appeal (IC) No. 18/97 from the Industrial Court, Surat have approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court, Surat on 18th May, 1995 allowing the appeal of the workman by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 28th February, 1986 in Application (T) No. 233/80 where under the workman had made grievances qua his compulsory retirement before the age of superannuation. The appellate Court directed that the compulsory retirement, which was brought about on 30th April, 1980 was illegal and hence the workman was ordered to be treated to have been in service till 30.4.1983 and be given all dues admissible on that basis. This order passed by the appellate Court on 18.5.1995 is assailed in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) On merits, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is contrary to the provision of law as the Court has gone into examining the justification for passing the order impugned namely order of compulsory retirement, when the relevant provision namely Standing Order 22 (9) (1) unequivocally provided for Board's power for compulsorily retire an employee before he attains the regular age of superannuation, at the age when he is found to be inefficient and/or not fit to be retained till the regular age of superannuation. Then, in such a situation, no further inquiry into the grounds were warranted and hence, the findings recorded by the appellate Court while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the competent labour Court on Application (T) was incorrect and requires interference.

(3.) This Court is of the considered view that the present petition is required to be dismissed for following reasons.