SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two connected petitions bearing Nos. 1740 and 1741 of 1994, the only question that needs determination is as to whether the petitioners, who were employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, could be retired at the age of 58 years. Brief facts, as culled out from Civil Writ Petition No. 1741 of 1994, reveal that petitioners came to be employed on various posts as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 10 on different dates and before the present petition was filed, they all retired from their respective posts. It is, inter-alia, pleaded that under Regulation 45-C of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 no age of superannuation had been prescribed and, therefore, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in British Paints (India) Ltd v. Its Workmen, 1966 AIR(SC) 732 the petitioners were entitled to continue so long as they were physically and mentally fit and the Supreme Court had considered the age of 60 years as reasonable age for superannuation. It is also pleaded that no rules have been framed by the Government under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 under which retirement age could be prescribed and, therefore, the petitioner could not be retired at the age of 58 years. It is further the case of the petitioners that according to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case aforesaid, certified standing orders, known as PRTC (Conditionsof Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1981 and which have been certified on 7.1.1981 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, which contain provisions of superannuation at the age of 58 years are ultra-vires the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and hence are liable to be ignored being nullity.

(2.) The cause of the petitioners has been seriously opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, various preliminary objections, like mis-joinder of parties and petition suffering from laches and delay, have been taken. It has also been pleaded that PRTC (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1981 have been framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 on 7.1.1987. These regulations have been classified in the presence of the authorised representatives of the Corporation as well as authorised representatives of Corporation Workers Union and the same came into operation on 16.1.1981. The said Regulations of 1981 are applicable to Class III and IV employees of the Corporation, who have been defined in para 4 of the said Regulations. The petitioners are governed by the said Regulations and in view of Regulation 17, the retirement age is the date when an employee attains the age of 58 years. It is also pleaded that framing of Regulations under Section 45-C of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 is not applicable and the judgment of the Supreme Court in British Paints' case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as representatives of the Management of the Workers Union represented before the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Regulations of 1981 were authenticated on 7.1.1981 and came into force w.e.f. 16.1.1981. Regulations of 1981 were applicable to all Class III and IV employees of the Corporation and the petitioners, as per their own showing, were Class III employees of the Corporation. It is also the case of respondent Corporation that as per Para 17 of the 1981 Regulations, age of retirement is 58 years insofar as Class III employees are concerned whereas Class IV employees are to be retired at the age of 60.

(3.) As is clear from the pleadings, the petitioners have almost exclusively relied upon two judgments of the Apex Court in the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. P.D. Vyas and others, 1960 AIR(SC) 665 and M/s British Paints (India) Ltd., v. Its Workmen, 1966 AIR(SC) 732 in support of their contention that they should be superannuated at the age of 60 years. Insofar as reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in The Associated Cement's case is concerned, the same, in view of this Court, is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. The appellant Company in the aforesaid case had challenged the modifications made by the Commissioner of Labour in his capacity as Certifying Officer in the draft standing orders submitted by the Company for its certification under Section 3(1) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The modification/alterations were upheld by the Supreme Court on the ground that "the certifying officer had to be satisfied that the draft standing orders dealt with every matter set out in the schedule and are otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the Act. The draft standing orders must be in conformity with the model standing order which is provided under Section 15(2)(b) for the purposes of the Act and, unless it is shown that it would be impracticable to do so, the draft standing order must be in conformity with the model standing order." It could not be demonstrated before this Court either by showing model standing orders or anything else on that behalf that Regulations of 1981 which were certified on 7.1.1981 prescribing age of superannuation of class III employees as 58 years, were in any way contrary to the model standing orders. But for citing the case law in the petition and reproducing some portion of the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Associate Cement Co.'s case and M/s British Paints' case , nothing else has been pleaded. On the contrary, first ground so pleaded rather goes to show that the case of the petitioners although was that as per Regulations framed under Section 45-C of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 no age of superannuation had ever been prescribed and, therefore, according to the judgment of the Apex Court in British Paints' , the petitioners were entitled to continue so long as they were physically and mentally fit and since the Supreme Court had considered age of 60 years as reasonable one, petitioners could not be retired before they were to reach the said age. Once again, the petitioners in ground No. (ii) pleaded that there were no rules which have been framed by the Government under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 under which retirement age could be prescribed and, therefore, also the petitioners could not be retired at the age of 58 years. Only in ground No. (iii) it has been mentioned that model standing orders and Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders I Act, 1946 did not contain any provision regarding superannuation. Further, with a view to strengthen the plea as contained in ground No. (iii), nothing at all has been shown to the Court. No doubt, DB judgment reported as 1970 Labour Industrial Cases 1000 has been referred to but neither the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 nor the model standing orders, that may be applicable to the petitioners have been shown to the Court. It appears to this Court that an all out effort has been made by the drafter of this petition to confuse the issue by simply citing some paragraphs from the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court without giving facts that may be applicable to the case of petitioners with the obvious object of getting relief to the petitioners for which they are not entitled.