N DURAIRAJ Vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Casual Mazdoor in the Madras Dock Labour Board by order dated 22. 12. 66 with effect from 26. 12. 66. He was absorbed/registered as Reserve Pool Mazdoor with effect from 1. 4. 79. Thereafter, he was promoted as Tally Clerk on 1. 8. 79 and again promoted as Senior Tally Clerk with effect from 4. 8. 99. There is a dispute as to the date of birth namely, according to the petitioner, his date of birth is 27. 10. 49 and according to the respondents, it is 1. 6. 48, and a writ petition is also pending as to the date of birth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, even assuming that the date of birth is taken as 1. 6. 48, he would attain the age of superannuation only on 30. 6. 2008 after completion of 60 years. However, by the impugned order, the respondents had notified that the petitioner would be superannuating with effect from the afternoon of 30. 6. 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition.

(2.) MR. K. M. RAMESH, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed as Casual Mazdoor as per the Registered Scheme of the Madras Dock Labour Board namely, in terms of Clause 18-A of the Madras Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1957 and in terms of Clause 36 of the Settlement entered into under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 25. 5. 2001, whereby the Madras Dock Labour Board got merged with Madras Port Trust, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the age of sixty. As the petitioner's name is notified for superannuation with effect from the afternoon of 30. 6. 2006 on attaining the age of fifty-eight by the impugned notification, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit. Mr. M. R. Dharani Chander, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Port Trust submitted that Clause 36 of the Settlement dated 25. 5. 2001 would be applicable only to such of those dock workers who were appointed prior to 31. 5. 74 in the Registered Scheme and prior to 1961 in the Listed Scheme to continue in service till the age of sixty. Inasmuch as the petitioner was not appointed prior to 31. 5. 74 in the Registered Scheme, as he was working only as Casual Mazdoor on the said cut-off date, he is not entitled to continue in service till the age of sixty. The further contention of the learned counsel is that the impugned order is in accordance with the Scheme as well as the Settlement. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.