(1.) THE petitioner is working as driver with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the order Annexure P -1, issued on 11.12.2008, whereby it has been ordered that he shall retire on attaining of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30th April, 2009.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(b). It is further contended that the petitioner is an employee of Himachal Road Transport Corporation which is an Industrial Establishment and therefore, in terms of Fundamental Rule 56(b), he can be superannuated only on attaining the age of sixty years. We had vide our order dated 22nd April, 2009 directed the H.R.T.C. to file supplementary affidavit clearly stating therein as to whether Fundamental Rules are applicable to the H.R.T.C. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed. Relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced below: That in this regard, it is submitted that the Fundamental Rules are applicable to Himachal Road Transport Corporation as after the inception of Himachal Road Transport Corporation, the Fundamental Rules were adopted by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. The State of Himachal Pradesh has amended the Fundamental Rules in their applicability vide notification dated 10th May, 2001. Following amendment was made to Rule 56 (b): Provided that a workman appointed on or after the date of Publication of this notification in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years.
(3.) THE contention raised by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, appearing on behalf of the H.R.T.C. is that the petitioner even if he is held to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be considered to be a workman within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(b) as he is not an artisan. It was also contended that since the State of Himachal Pradesh has amended the Rules with regard to the age of retirement, even under Fundamental Rule 56(b), the age of superannuation is 58 years and not 60 years. Both these contentions are totally without merit.