Civil Writ Petition No.5794 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.5794 of 1987 Date of Decision:20.10.2008 Sardar Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been filed by Sardar Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 26.11.1986 (Annexure P.1) as well as his termination order. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was working as Bank Supervisor with Chief Executive Officer, The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur- respondent. His services were terminated on 1.9.1979 with effect from 24.8.1979. He demanded reinstatement with continuity of service as well as back-wages by means of demand notice. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the workman retired on attaining the age of superannuation on Ist September, 1979? 2. If issue no.1 is not proved, whether termination of the services of the workman was justified and in order? 3. Relief. Civil Writ Petition No.5794 of 1987 -2- After hearing the representatives of both the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur dismissed the reference. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner has preferred this petition. None has come forward to argue on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Prashar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 besides perusing the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 argued that as is borne out from the observations made by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the petitioner could not refer to any rules or any authentic document whereunder the age of retirement has been raised to 58 years and thus no fault can be found with the impugned award or the impugned order. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these submissions. On 10.7.1979, the petitioner- workman attained the age of 55 years. The respondent- Management came up with the plea that the age of retirement of the workman was 55 years. The workman by relying upon Mark `A' put forth that his age of retirement was 58 years. This document Mark `A' being unattested and unauthenticated has been rightly rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The workman did not refer to the relevant rules or any authentic document whereby the age of retirement has been raised to 58 years. It is an accredited rule of evidence that a document cannot be looked into evidence unless it is proved in a manner as provided by law. Mark `A' having not been proved as such could not be taken into consideration. As averred in this petition, the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.5794 of 1987 -3- retired vide order dated 1.9.1979 (Annexure P.2) of Chief Executive Officer, The Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Gurdaspur with effect from 24.8.1979. As transpires from Annexure P.2, the extension of service beyond 55 years has been refused by the Executive Committee of the Bank. As alleged in this petition, no reason has been assigned by the respondent before refusing the extension nor any show-cause notice was given nor any opportunity as envisaged under Rules or under the principles of natural justice was afforded to the petitioner before passing Annexure P.2. It is further averred in the petition that as per newly substituted Rule 18 of the Financing Institution Service Rules, the retirement age of all the persons in the service is 58 years. As alleged, respondent No.2 vide letter No. Credit/ CAI/3-P/58613-62 dated 20.11.1970 (Annexure P.3) informed all the Deputy Registrars and others regarding the substitution of the afore- mentioned rules, which was produced before the Labour Court but the same was not relied upon by saying that it was not an authenticated letter. It is further averred that the relevant rule 2.15 of the Financing Institution Service Rules 1970 and 1971 envisages that an employee shall ordinarily retire on attaining the age of 58 years and that the petitioner has been wrongly retired at the age of 55 years. It is further averred that the petitioner's case does not fall within clause (b) of Rule 2.15. I have well considered these averments. Of course, as per Annexure P.3, Rule 18 of the Punjab Cooperative Financing Institution Service Rules was substituted with the word “all persons in the service shall retire on the attaining the age of 58 years”, but as per rules, the employer cannot be forced to give extension to his employee after attaining the age of 55 years. The discretion vests in the employer. As is borne out from Civil Writ Petition No.5794 of 1987 -4- Annexure P.2, the Executive Committee of the Bank in its meeting held on 24.8.1979 took the decision not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 55 years of age. In view of this decision, he was relieved from service with effect from 24.8.1979. The discretion to extend the service beyond 55 years lies with the employer. Sequelly, the respondent- Management cannot be directed to extend the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 55 years. Consequently, I do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned award as well as the order Annexure P.2 dated 1.9.1979 in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition is dismissed. October 20 , 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No