HYD ALLWYN LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Mahboob Ali, the workman, joined the service of the petitioner-companyon July 11, 1943 as a Fitter. By Proceedings dated June 6, 1978, the workman was intimated that he would retire from service with effect from July 11, 1978 on completion of 35 years of full-time service. Questioning the effect thereof, a reference was sought for under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). Ultimately, by Reference dated December 2, 1983, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour court thus : "Whether the retirement of Shri Mahboob Ali from service, after completion of 35 years of service by the Management of Hyderabad Allwyn Metal Works, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

(2.) The Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court by its Award datedMay 27, 1985 in ID. No. 94/83, held that, on the date when the workman entered into the service of the petitioner-company, there was no age of superannuation prescribed. Subsequently, Certified Standing Orders have come into force with effect from July 22, 1948, and they were amended on March 1, 1979. Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders gives discretion to the management to retire a workman who completes 35 years of full-time service. The workman in this case was discriminated against inasmuch as persons similarly placed viz., Sarvasri Easwaraiah and Narayana, who had completed 35 years of service in the petiiioner-company have not been retired, and no reasons have been given to make such an invidious discrimination. The workman would have retired after completing 58 years of age. Therefore, the action taken by the petitioner-company is not fair, and amounts to improper exercise of the discretionary power on the part of the petitioner-company. The workman was unfairly discriminated and removed from service. It further held that the termination of the workman was not justified, and directed his reinstatement into service forthwith with continuity of service with all other attendant benefits including full backwages. It also declared that the workman would be entitled to be retained and continued in service till he attained the age of 58 years i.e. the age of super-annuation. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The contention of Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, the learned Counselfor the petitioner-company is that, according to Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders, retirement of a workman would either be on completion of 35 years of full-time service in the petitioner-company, or, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e.. 58 years, whichever event shall first occur. Thus the management has been given discretionary power to retire their workmen on completion of either of the events which shall first occur. Accordingly, the petitioner-company had exercised their power. It is in terms of Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders. As such, the Industrial Tribunal has committed grievous error in going into arbitrariness or discrimination inasmuch as it is uncalled for in view of the fact that Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders not only empowers the petitioner-company to retire their workmen but also binds the workmen. This was resisted by Sri G. Rama chandra Rao. the learned Counsel for the workman. According to Sri Ramachandra Rao, though Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders gives discretion to the petitioner-company, it should be exercised consistent with the spirit of the Rule. The Rule postulates that the workman is entitled to be in service until he attains the age of superannuation of 58 years. If any action is to be taken, as to retirement, before he attains the age of superannuation of 58 years, there must be reasons recorded for the same, and the action must not be discriminatory. In the instant case, no such reason has been given while directing the workman's retirement. The question of continuance of the workman in service after superannuation is always discretionary of the management but, before his attaining 58 years of age, though the completed 35 years of full-time service, the management must assign reasons for taking such an action. In this case, no such reasons have been assigned. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal is well-justified in giving the Award.