MANAGEMENT OF GEMINI COLOUR LAB VEMBULIAMMAN KOIL STREET REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER M K BHARATHI Vs. S RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner management seeking to challenge an award passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.817 of 1999 dated 30.10.2006. By the impugned award, the Labour Court directed that the workman was entitled to wages from 15.11.1998 to 15.11.2001 and also balance of retirement benefit as if the workman retired on 15.11.2001. The Writ Petition was admitted on 9.7.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted. Subsequently, by an order dated 14.2.2008, this Court, after calculating the backwages, which comes approximately Rs.2 Lakhs, directed the petitioner management to pay Rs.1 Lakh towards backwages. Thereafter, the workman filed M.P.No.1 of 2009 seeking for an early hearing of the Writ Petition and no orders have been passed in that application.

(2.) The case of the workman was that he joined the petitioner laboratory on 6.11.1967. He was confirmed as Printing Assistant on 1.7.1968. During the year 1970, he was promoted as Junior Printer. Later, he was promoted on Senior Printer on 1.4.1980. The management by a notice dated 1.12.1980 transferred the workman from the Printing Department to F.C.C Department as a Senior Film Checker. He was absorbed in the said Department on 1.12.1980. It is alleged that with effect from 15.10.1998, he was relieved from service. According to the workman, he had put in 31 years of service and his last drawn salary was Rs.5450/-. The stand of the workman was that on 9.10.1998, the management put up a notice stating that the workman had attained the age of retirement with effect from 15.11.1998. Therefore, it was contended that he was pre-maturely retired from service at the age of 55 years when he was supposed to retire on 15.11.2001 on attaining the age of 58 years. In their establishment, there were two different Clauses in the Certified Standing Order. With reference to the age of retirement of the persons, who have worked in Printing Department, it was 55 years and for those who are working in F.C.C Department, it was 58 years. Therefore, it was contended that there cannot be two sets of Standing Orders prescribed before it. If the Standing Orders are not certified, the model standing order will apply. Though he was working in the Printing Department till 1.12.1980, subsequently he was transferred to F.C.C Department. Therefore, he contended that the action of the management in pre-maturely retiring him from service would amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Chennai. He filed a claim statement. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.870 of 1999 and issued notice to the management.

(3.) The management filed a counter statement dated 29.3.2000. In the counter statement, it was contended that the Certified Standing Orders of the company fixed the age of retirement of Printers as 55 years. In fact the workman was promoted as Senior Printer even before he was transferred to F.C.C Department. In respect of other employees, it was 58 years. At the relevant time he was designated as Senior Film Checker though he continued to be Senior Printer. Hence, coming under the Printing Department, his age of retirement was only 55 years. The claim of the workman that he was a Senior Film Checker was also erroneous.