M K MULKI Vs. KEMEN PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the Award of the Labour Court dated 16th August, 1994 rejecting the reference against continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the services of Chemical Engineering Corporation as a Peon-cum-despatch Clerk on 5th October, 1949. The said company was then taken over by the first respondent herein in 1967. Individual letters were issued by the first respondent regarding the taking over of the company to each workman. On 31st July, 1972, the first respondent confirmed the services of the petitioner with them and the petitioner was informed that his service conditions would continue unchanged. It appears that the employees of the erstwhile Chemical Engineering Corporation were permitted to continue in service till they were mentally fit or the employees themselves decided to retire from service. These service conditions were continued by the first respondent. The petitioner was, therefore, surprised to receive retirement notice of 17th December, 1987 retiring him with effect from 1st January, 1988. The petitioner continued to report for duty even after 1st January, 1988. However, no work was assigned to him and his name was struck off from the muster roll. On 24th February, 1988, the petitioner raised a demand for reinstatement as no work was being allotted to him. The dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. Pleadings were filed by the parties. The petitioner had made a categorical statement in his statement of claim that there was no retirement age fixed with the first respondent company. However, the first respondent pleaded that the petitioner had been retired on attaining the age of the superannuation and that the petitioner at the time of retirement on 1st January, 1988 was 62 years 7 months and 20 days old. The evidence of the petitioner was recorded when he was 68 years old. At that stage, he has stated that due to his old age, his memory was weak. He also admitted that even at the age of 62 his memory was weak but that he was physically capable to carry out the duties assigned to him. The employers evidence has been recorded by examining the Manager who has deposed that at the time of retirement, mental as well as physical efficiency of the petitioner was weak. The witness has also stated that as per the provisions of law, the employees retirement age was 58. However, he was unable to produce any provisions of law showing that the retirement was fixed at the age of 58 years.

(3.) THE Award of the Labour Court finds that the first respondent company was well within its right to retire the petitioner as his memory was weak and that in comparable concerns the retirement age was 58 or 60 years. On this ground alone, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service and that for an indefinite period of time.