MAHATMA GANDHI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. MADHUKAR VISHWANATH RANAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. With the consent of the parties Counsel, rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 waives service. The petitioner, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital, has challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated November 17, 1995 on the interim relief application, Ex. U-2, in Complaint (ULP) No. 1177 of 1995, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Madhukar Vishwanath Ranawade, (hereinafter "the respondent"), joined the service of the petitioner as a Clerk from March 1962. Later on he worked as a Cashier too. In September, 1966 he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk. He worked in the various departments of the petitioner-hospital and was asked to assist the superiors like Administrative Officer, Accounts Officer, Secretary, Board of Management. He was designated as Junior Administrative Officer, in December, 1974. The respondent was informed by retirement memo dated August 11, 1995 that he would be retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years with effect from October 31, 1995. The respondent challenged this order by filing a complaint against the petitioner under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV read with Item 1 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the MRTU and PULP Act" ). Along with the application, an application for interim relief (Ex. U-2) was also filed praying therein that a direction be issued to the petitioner-Hospital to retire the respondent from service on his attaining the age of 60 years and not on his attaining the age of 58 years. The application was allowed by order dated November 17, 1995 and the following order was passed:-

(3.) THE Industrial Court, for reasons best known to it, did not think it proper to advert to the abovementioned aspect of the matter. Even otherwise the Industrial Court did not understand that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the respondent. Even if ultimately it had come to the conclusion that the age of retirement is 60 years and not 58 years as is contended by the petitioner-management, it could compensate the respondent by asking the petitioner to pay him two years salary. This relief was admissible at the time of final disposal of the complaint and not prior thereto. The Industrial Court did not appreciate that if the complaint is dismissed, as was the fate of similar other complaints filed by employees similarly situated, how he would restore the status quo ante. In the present case, the respondent has achieved the object for which he has filed the complaint without proving his contention that he was not occupying a supervisory post and was a workman and was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years under the Standing Orders. The learned Industrial Court, while disposing of the interim relief application, has quashed the retirement memo and we are at a loss to understand as to under what provision of law he has done so. The order does not reflect application of judicial mind. Looking to the matter from any angle, the order cannot be sustained.