SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD Vs. KASIPETA RAYAPOSHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 9972 of 1989, dated 2-2-1994.

(2.) The Management of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited is the Appellant and one Sri Kasipeta Rayaposham is the Respondent-Workman. He filed Writ Petition before this Court seeking for a direction to quash the proceedings of the management dated 6-9-1988 and for a consequential order to confer the benefits of the voluntary retirement scheme on the petitioner by providing the employment to the son of the Respondent-Workman. The Respondent-Workman was employed in the Singareni Collieries Company Limited, the Appellant Company. As per the conditions of service of the workman, the age of the superannuation is 60 years. As per the circulars issued by the company, the workman has a choice to retire voluntarily even before attaining the age of superannuation provided, the Workman makes an application one year prior to the date of the retirement nominating one of his dependants for employment in the company. The Respondent - Workman was due to retire from service on 2-1-1989, but as per the scheme of retirement, the employee is continued to be in the employment till the end of the month in which he has to retire. As the petitioner was not in a position to continue inservice due to health reasons he filed an application on 19-1-1988 seeking voluntary etirement and also for providing employment to his son Sri K. Chandraiah. However by letter dated 21-1-1988 he was informed that he is attaining the age of superannuation on 21-2-1989 and that under clause 4 of Age Retirement Rules, the Respondent-Workman shall retire from the end of the month. There appears to be a slight dispute with regard to the completion of 60 years. As per the version of the management, he would attain the age of superannuation on 21-2-1989, but, however, the same was corrected as 2-1-1989. This makes no difference, in as much as the retirement is effected only from the last date of month in which the employee attains the age of superannuation. The Appellant-Management on 20-1-1988 informed the Workman that his case cannot be considered as he did not apply within one year prior to the date of his retirement. By a subsequent letter dated 6-1-89 his request for medical examination, could not be considered as the application itself was not made within time stipulated under the Circular. The Appellant- Management contended before the learned single Judge that it is open for the employee to seek retirement even before attaining the age of superannuation, but that application should be only on health reasons. As per circular dt. 16-7-84, the aged and infirm workers who are physically weak will be allowed to retire in favour of their sons or other male dependants subject to the condition that the application for retirement is received by the management atleast one year prior to the date of normal retirement. The learned single Judge while interpreting the circular dated 16-7-1984 held that the application filed by the Respondent Workman is within time and accordingly allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Appellant-Management to consider the petitioner's request for providing superannuation employment to the petitioner's son under the voluntary retirement scheme within a period of three months. Against the said decision, the Management filed the present Writ Appeal.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-Management submits that as per the circular, the Workman seeking voluntary retirement is required to submit the application within one year prior to the date of his retirement. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Respondent-Workman attained the age of superannuation on 2-1-1989 (though the typographical error had crept in stating that the Workman would attain the age of 60 years on 21-2-1989). Therefore, in as much as the application was made on 20-1-1988, the same has to be rejected on the ground of limitation prescribed under the Circular and the learned Single Judge ought to have accepted the contention raised on behalf of the management. Thus, he submits that the judgment of the learned single Judge is wholly erroneous and illegal. Secondly also he submits that while making an application for voluntary retirement, he did not produce any medical certificate to the effect that he was infirm and physically, weak as required under the Circular. Hence, on that ground also the learned single Judge ought to have rejected the application.