VASUDEO DHARANIDHAR JOSHI Vs. BOMBAY TEXTILE RESEARCH ASOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5481 of 1996 and Writ Petition No. 6275 of 1995 were employed with the respondent-Bombay Textile Research Association (BTRA) as workmen for a number of years. The grievance made by them in the Writ Petitions filed by them is that although the Industrial Court while deciding the complaints filed by them has held that the respondent-BTRA has committed an unfair labor practice by retiring them at the age of 58 years, no wages have been granted to them for two years when their contention that they were entitled to continue till the age of 60 years has been accepted. The Petitioners in Writ petition No. 537 of 1998 (which is a cross petition to writ Petition No. 5481 of 1995) and Writ Petition No. 538 of 1997 (which is a cross petition to Writ Petition no. 6275 of 1995) have also challenged the orders of the industrial Court as, according to them, they have committed no unfair labor practice whatsoever and the industrial Court has erred in deeming the retirement age of the workers concerned as 60 years rather than 58 years.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present Petitions are not disputed. The workmen were employed with the btra and continued as such in employment till they attained the age of 58 years. The workman in Writ petition No. 5481 of 1996 was issued a memo on 30. 9. 1984 informing him that he would be retired on 30. 12. 1989 when he would be 58 years of age. The workman in Writ petition No. 6275 of 1995 was informed by a letter of 2. 6. 1987 that he would be retired on 6. 7. 1987 on completion of 58 years. Both these workmen, therefore, were accordingly, retired at the age of 58 years and had no cause to make a grievance till they filed their complaints on 24. 11. 1995 and 22. 11. 1995 respectively. The contention raised by each of the Petitioners in their complaints was that the BTRA had retired them at the age of 58 years in violation of the model standing orders which were applicable. According to them, they were entitled to continue till the age of 60 years. Furthermore, according to the workmen, some other workmen continued in service till the age of 60 years after the petitioners were retired. This they claimed was discriminatory and, therefore, submitted that there was an unfair labor practice under Item 5 of Schedule iv of the MRTU and PULP Act. They also claimed that by issuing them the notices terminating their services, the btra had committed unfair labor practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The claim was also made that in the case of one G. D. Kamath, A. R. Gadigaonkar and V. P. Shetye they were deemed to have been continued in service up to the age of 60 years and they were paid two years wages and other benefits by the btra. According to the Petitioners, BTRA ought to have complied with the orders of this Court in Writ Petition no. 2665 of 1991 in respect of G. V. Kamath and in Writ petition No. 2324 of 1994 in respect of A. R. Gadigaonkar where the learned Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that the Model Standing Orders were applicable and that the age of retirement for the workmen of BTRA was 60 years. The Petitioners, therefore, claimed by their Complaints that they were entitled to have been deemed to be in service till they attained the age of 60 years and accordingly, ought to be paid wages up to that age. DATED : 27th JULY 2064

(3.) THE Written Statement filed by BTRA before the industrial Court was to the effect that the Circular which was issued by BTRA on 2nd December 1971 and which has been signed by individual workers specifies that the age of retirement for Scientific and Research Officer would be 60 years and 58 years for other workmen. According to BTRA, the Complainants having signed this circular, it constituted a contract between the parties and, therefore, the workmen could not reside from that contract stipulating the age of retirement as 58 years. BTRA also pleaded that the Model Standing Orders permitted them to fix an age of retirement lower than 60 years and the age has been fixed by a document which constituted an agreement, albeit not under Section 2 (p)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was also pleaded in the Written Statement that the Complaints were not maintainable as they had been filed six years after the age of retirement in the case of Joshi and eight years after the retirement in the case of Kondary. Therefore* according to BTRA, the Complaints were barred by limitation. Moreover, no application for condoning the delay had been filed as required under the Act. A contention was also raised that the Petitioners were not employees within the meaning of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 since they were working in a supervisory capacity and also because after retirement they ceased to be employees as defined under the Act. The maintainability of the Complaints was also challenged on the ground that the Complainants had invoked the provisions of Item 1 of schedule IV while preferring the Complaints before the industrial Court.