COIMBATORE DISTRICT CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited, represented by its General Manager, aggrieved by the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D.No. 262 of 1997 dated 13.11.2000 has filed the present writ petition challenging the said award to quash the same with a consequential direction to drop further proceedings in C.P.No.141 of 2001.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Stores is a Cooperative Society, popularly known as "Chinthamani" registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. THE Store used to purchase essential commodities such as Rice, Dhal, Wheat, spices, pulses, etc., and after being processed the commodities would be distributed to other stores for the purpose of sale at reasonable rates to the consumers. When the business of the petitioner store was in its peak, it has engaged nearly 100 women for cleaning, winnowing, brooming and other such purposes. All of them were uneducated and they did not produce any certificate or proof to enter their date of birth. In the year 1992, after twenty years of service, a large number of them were found to be old and they proved to be ineffective in carrying out their work. Further, they were not able to cope up with the work load, which gradually increased. THErefore, the Management referred them for proper medical examination in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and the Medical Board also examined them. On receipt of the medical reports, the Management issued notices to some of them, who were certified to have crossed 60 years. On that basis, they were superannuated based on the medical reports. In this process, 13 employees were certified to have crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.7.1996 and out of 13, nine of them agreed and accepted their superannuation and left the service. THE second respondent is one such employee, who refused to accept her superannuation. When she joined the service of the petitioner stores on 1.8.1975, she gave her age as 35 years. THErefore, when she appeared before the Medical Board, she gave her age as 52 years as on 20.7.1992. But the Medical Board has fixed her age as 56 years as on 20.7.1992. On the basis of the certificate furnished by the Medical Board, the second respondent was also given a notice dated 11.7.1996 and it was acknowledged by her on 22.7.1996. In the said notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner had crossed the age of 60 years and on that basis the petitioner fixed the date of retirement on 31.7.1996. Again another notice was sent to the second respondent on 16.7.1996 specifically mentioning that she will be retired from service on 31.7.1996 since the Medical Board has certified that the second respondent has crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.7.1996. After the second respondent was ordered to retire from service, aggrieved by the said order retiring her from service on 31.7.1996, she raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.262 of 1997 before the first respondent Presiding Officer, the Labour Court, Coimbatore. THE Labour Court has passed the present award dated 13.11.2000 in I.D.No.262 of 1997 to the effect that the retirement of the second respondent from service on 31.7.1996 was not correct. On that basis, the Labour Court awarded 50% of the back wages. Aggrieved by the said award directing payment of 50% of the back wages, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) "The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent does not find any substance for more than one reason. Prima facie, when the petitioner Management in the year 1972 in order to facilitate the sale of essential commodities such as rice, dhal, wheat, spices, pulses etc., to the consumers and also to distribute them to other stores for their further sales, they had employed 100 women for cleaning, winnowing and brooming without any birth certificate or educational qualification certificate produced by them. Subsequently, when the petitioner management found the employees totally ineffective and inactive due to their age problem, they sent the employees for medical examination by the Medical Board of the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital so as to find out the correct age of the employees and their suitability to continue in the employment. The Medical Board also certified that 13 employees who were sent for medical examination by the petitioner Management have crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.7.1996. Out of the said 13 employees, nine of them had agreed to the medical certificate and accepted their age as 60 as on 31.7.1996 and retired from service on superannuation. The remaining four employees raised industrial disputes before the Labour Court. Even among the four employees, three of them had also agreed to accept 25% of the back wages. Accordingly out of four employees, the petitioner management has settled the claim of three employees by paying 25% of the back wages. The second respondent alone pursued her claim and invited the present award in which the Labour Court also held that her non-employment is unreasonable and wrongly allowed her claim ignoring the medical certificate issued by the medical board. The reasons given by the Labour Court in the award for rejecting the certificate issued by the Medical Board of the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital does not merit consideration. Therefore, when the second respondent has not produced any acceptable evidences in support of her age, either at the time of joining the service of the petitioner Management or before the Medical Board, she has no other option except to accept her age as mentioned in the certificate issued by the Medical Board. Though the Medical Board has fixed the age of the second respondent as 60 years as on 20.7.1996, yet the Management has come forward to pay 25% of the back wages to the second respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances, the offer of the petitioner Management to pay 25% back wages to the second respondent, according to me is reasonable. Therefore, the award passed by the first respondent is liable to be modified in view of the stand taken by the petitioner Management.