TATA CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. NATHU MERU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Parekh, learned advocate for the respondent workman.

(2.) In present petition, the petitioner company has challenged award dated 20.6.2006 passed by the learned Labour Court at Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.279 of 1996 whereby the learned Labour Court held that the action of the company of relieving the claimant on the ground that he attained prescribed age of superannuation on the basis of the record of the company, is illegal and the claimant should be deemed to be in service for entire period from the date when he came to be relieved (as per company's record) until the date on which the claimant attained prescribed age of superannuation (according to the document on which the claimant placed reliance before the learned Labour Court), i.e. for the period from 4.3.1996 to 15.9.2002 and the Court directed the company to pay full wages for the said period from 4.3.1996 to 15.9.200

(3.) So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that upon being relieved from service on the ground that the workman had reached/attained age of superannuation (on the basis of record available with the company and the record of Provident Fund), the respondent herein, i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the company illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service on ground of superannuation. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court. The dispute-reference culminated into Reference (LCJ) No.279 of 1996.