SAMAJ Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, challenge is made to the award dated December 17, 1988 of the Industrial Tribunal. Orissa, Bhubancshwar by the petitioner, the management of 'the Samaj' establishment.

(2.) THE facts of the case, most of which are undisputed, may be briefly stated thus. Opposite party No. 3 Banchhanidhi Das at the material time was working as an Assistant Editor in the establishment of the petitioner. By order dated July 1, 1982, he was retired on superannuation on completion of 58th year of age with effect from August 1, 1982, which was, however, extended to August 23, 1982, as his date of birth was later found to be August 24, 1924. Being asked to retire on superannuation, opposite party No. 3 made a grievance before the management that being an employee of the category of working journalists, he was governed by the conditions of service applicable to Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short "the Act') and the recommendations of the Wage Board for Working Journalists under Section 10 (3) of the said Act, and as such he was entitled to continue in employment till completion of his 60th year of age. The management, however, did not accept the contention of opposite party No. 3 on the ground that as per the provisions of the Standing Order of the establishment which was applicable to opposite party No. 3 , the retirement on superannuation on completion of 58 years of age was justified. Thereafter a dispute was raised by opposite party No. 3 through the Utkal Journalists Association. The dispute was admitted to conciliation, and on failure of the conciliation, a conciliation failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government. Thereafter, the State Government in due course considering the rival contentions of both the management and the workmen found that a dispute existed with regard to the age of retirement of the workman, and eventually it referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal by notification July 23, 1987. The reference was to the following effect:

(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal, on hearing both parties, passed the award in favour of opposite party No. 3, holding that the action of the management of the Samaj in retiring opposite party No. 3 from service at the age of 58 years is neither legal nor justified. Accordingly it directed that in view of opposite party No. 3 having already crossed the age of 60 years, there could not be an order of reinstatement, but opposite party No. 3 would only be entitled to receive his wages for the period of his employment from August 13, 1982 till he completed his 60th year of age in August 24, 1984. Besides he was also held entitled to all the terminal and retirement benefits admissable to him. Being thus aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the management has approached this Court in this application for quashing of the award dated December 17, 1988 which has been annexed as Annexure-8.