IN RE Vs. RAJENDRA LAI DNAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order of the industrial Court passed in a Complaint filed under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULT Act. The industrial Court has dismissed: Passed the complaint and has come to the conclusion that the Petitioners; were unable to prove that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed unfair labour practice. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: the company that is Respondent No. 2 was carrying on business of the Grease Division in Mumbai Steel containers Ltd. and Industrial Containers Ltd. were merged with the Respondent Company in 1975, After merger, this was known as Container Division. Both the container division and the grease division were treated as separate entities by the Respondent Company. According to the Respondent Company, after the merger the service conditions which prevailed in the erstwhile steel Containers Ltd. applied to the container division. These conditions of service were stipulated in an agreement which had been entered into with their workers on 3.6.1964. Under this settlement, the retirement age of the workers was 58 years. Even after merger, the respondent company continued to retire the workmen employed in the Container division at 'the age of 58 years.

(2.) It appears that in 197'/, a Reference being reference (I'd No. 304 of 1977 was made for adjudication of certain demands which had been raised by the workmen of the grease division. Most of the demands were settled and an award part I has been made on 10. 8.1979 in terms of the settlement. The two demands which were not settled were adjudicated upon by the Industrial tribunal. These demands pertained to bonus and the age of retirement. The Tribunal adjudicated these demands and by an award part II dated 8.9.1980 held that the age of retirement should be 60 years.

(3.) A complaint was filed by the Petitioner being complaint (ULP) No. 914 of 1989 alleging that the respondent company had committed art unfair labour practice by retiring persons in the container division at the age or 53 years although there was an aware of 1980 which prescribed the age of retirement as 60 years. It was also contended in the complaint that the Model standing Orders which were applicable to the company stipulate that the age of retirement is 60 years and therefore, the persons working in the container- division ought to have been retired at the age of 60 years. and not 58 years as was being done by the respondent company in the container division.