IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 77 of 2010 M/s Garhwal Motors Owners Union Ltd. .……… Appellant Versus Rewati Nandan Deorari. .………. Respondent. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) After having had attained the age of superannuation fixed at 58 years, the respondent retired. He, thereupon, received his retiral benefits. Subsequent thereto, he filed a writ petition in the year 1995 contending that he should have been permitted to work up to the age of 60 years, inasmuch as, the age of superannuation is 60 years. This writ petition was not decided on merits. On the request of the respondent, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the respondent to approach appropriate authority. The respondent then approached the Labour Court with an application for condonation of delay in making such approach. That application has been allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached this Court and filed a writ petition challenging the order by which delay in approaching the Labour Court was condoned by the Labour Court. That writ petition has been dismissed by the order under appeal. Two reasons have been furnished, namely, the Act does not say how much delay can be condoned and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a reported judgment, has held that it would be appropriate to decide industrial disputes instead of scuttling the same at the threshold on the ground of delay. 2. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal submitted that now it has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N. Nigam & others Vs. Arvind Garg & another, reported in 2010 (1) UAD 575, that a person is entitled to 2 enhanced retirement age only when he was either serving until then or had approached the adjudicating authority before attaining the said age. It was contended that since the respondent did not approach the court before he reached the age of 60 years, he was not entitled to enhanced retirement age of 60 years. On that premise, it appears that the appellant seeks to succeed in this appeal. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N. Nigam & others (supra) is applicable while deciding the dispute on merit. This judgment has got nothing to do with condonation of delay in approaching the Labour Court with a dispute. 3. In the circumstances, there being no other submission on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, we conclude the matter and dispose of the appeal, reserving liberty of the appellant to take such stand as it may be advised to take before the Labour Court to defend the claim against the respondent, including to take recourse to the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Pey Jal S.V.A.N. Nigam & others (supra). (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 26.08.2010 26.08.2010 G