PRABHAKAR RAJARAM GANGAN Vs. C B ASMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was in employment of the respondent No. 2, bank as a clerk for a total period of about 34 years. According to the petitioner his record was satisfactory and had rendered service without any blemish. The employee-employer relations between the bank and the employees are governed by the Certified Standing Orders framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Its Clause 22 (7) determines the age of superannuation as 55 years. The bank had informed the petitioner by its letter dated 13th January 1990 that on reaching the age of 55 years on 27th April 1999, he would stand superannuated i. e. from 30-4-1990. According to the petitioner, he was having good health and has also produced a certificate from the Civil Surgeon to that effect with a request to grant him further extension in employment as provided under the said Standing Order No. 22 (7 ). It is the case of the petitioner that the bank did not grant him extension and intimated by its letter dated 26th February 1990 that he would stand superannuated from 30-4-1990. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order of the bank and therefore filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice after making his last approach by his letter dated 17th April 1990, under section 28 read with mainly Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, which reads as under:-

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the certified standing orders were in the form of an agreement between the employer and the employees and since the bank had not acted in accordance with Clause 22 (7) of the Standing Orders by refusing to grant the petitioner extension after the age of 55 years, engaged in an Unfair Labour Practice under item 1 (a) and 1 (b) and 9 of the Act. The bank contested the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court, however, had passed the following ad-interim order on 11th June 1990 which reads as follows:-The application is partly granted. The complainant shall continue in service for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the final disposal of the complaint whichever is earlier. "

(3.) THE Industrial Court framed issues on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary. It came to a positive conclusion that there was no Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. It also recorded a finding that the petitioner had no vested right to get any extension in service after attaining 55 years of age of superannuation in the respondent No. 2, bank. The Industrial Court on the basis of its discussion on the said issues finally dismissed the complaint.