RAMADHAR Vs. ASSOCIATED ANCILLARIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Shimla, on 19.12.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner for continuation in service till the age of 60 years.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, may be noticed. The following reference came to be filed before the Tribunal: - "Whether forced retirement at the age of 56 years of Sh. Ramadhar workman by the Management of M/S Associated Ancillaries, Shed No.1 to 4, Sector -2 Parwanoo, District Solan contrary to the provisions of Rule 12(3)(c) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 under Employees Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and also contrary to the provisions prescribed in sub -item(3) of item 10 -A of schedule 1 -A of Model Standing Orders under Rule 3 of the Model Standing Orders framed under Rule 3 of Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1973 and Amendment Rules, 1991 framed under Section 15 of the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946 is legal and justified as M/S Associated Ancillaries have been employing more than 60 (Sixty) workers in their establishment? If not, to what service benefits and relief the workman Sh. Ramadhar is entitled to from the abovesaid establishment -

(3.) THIS claim was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner had retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 56 years and 4 months and had infact taken away all the benefits payable to him like gratuity and EPF. The sum and substance of the reply of the respondent was that the petitioner was estopped from filing the present reference petition.