Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 & Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 1. Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 Date of Decision:11.09.2008 The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Petitioner Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and another .....Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 Narinder Singh Gill .....Petitioner Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Virinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondent- workman. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. No.904 of 1988 moved by Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short, `the Corporation') as well as C.W.P. No.7308 of 1988, preferred by Narinder Singh Gill against the impugned order dated 21.5.1987 Annexure P.1. For convenience of reference, the facts are gathered from from C.W.P. No.904 of 1988. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Narinder Singh, (hereinafter to be referred as `the workman') was given premature retirement from service by the Corporation on 16.12.1976. The service conditions of the workman originally did not provide for age of Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 & Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 -2- superannuation, which was first stipulated at 58 years in the certified Standing Orders enforced with effect from 16.1.1981. He had submitted his joining report on 27.4.1981. The workman moved an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, `the Act') which culminated in the impugned order Annexure P.1. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the application is not maintainable? 2. Whether the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application? 3. To what amount, if any, is the workman entitled? 4. Relief. After hearing the learned representatives of the parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhatinda held that in application No.1309/1981, the amount due to the workman from the respondent (referring to the Corporation) is computed as Rs.29,585/- and dismissed application No.328/84 and 199/85. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Bhatinda with due care and circumspection. Mr. Virinder Pal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation has strenuously urged that when the dispute regarding pre-mature retirement of the workman was still pending before the Labour Court, the respondent- workman reached the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years on 23.2.1978. Thereafter, he moved application under Section 33-C(2)of the Act claiming arrears of wages from 16.12.1976 to 23.2.1978. The workman could not claim wages beyond the period at which he stood superannuated. He further argued that it is well Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 & Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 -3- settled principle of law that in the present case, the right of workman was not an existing right as he stood superannuated with effect from 23.2.1978. It is well settled principle of law that in the business of rules or administrative instructions, the employer can adopt and follow certain practice for governing the conditions of service of its employees and unless that practice is unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to sustain the same. The workman has not been discriminated against by retiring him on reaching his age of superannuation. Even under Section 2(r) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the age of superannuation has been fixed as 58 years in the absence of any contract to the contrary. As such, the petitioner had every right to retire the workman at the said age, which is otherwise in accordance with the certified Standing Orders. In these premises, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To tide over these submissions, Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate counsel for the workman argued that the age of superannuation having not been fixed by the Corporation, the workman could continue in service so long as he remained physically and mentally fit and that being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The workman was given pre-mature retirement from service with effect from 16.12.1976. The controversy has arisen because the Corporation had not framed the rules in relation to the retirement age of the workman. Ultimately, the certified Standing Order was enforced by the Corporation with effect from 16.1.1981. As per the same, the age of superannuation was fixed as 58 years. It was argued before the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court that the respondent- workman was Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 & Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 -4- not entitled to wages beyond the age of 58 years but the same was not accepted with the observation that the certified Standing Orders did not apply retrospectively. In re: G.K. Williams v. P.J. Starling , AIR 1959 SC 1279, it has been held that it is reasonable to hold that in the absence of any Standing Order, 58 years is the age of retirement. Normally, in all the concerns 58 years is the age of retirement. In re: Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Amrit Lal Gupta and Others, 2007(4) Recent Services Judgments 3, an identical view has been taken. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, if some workmen are permitted to work even after reaching the age of superannuation, it does not mean that the age of superannuation stands extended. As per the certified Standing Order II, the Corporation has fixed the retirement age as 58 years. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has held that the workman is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.29,585/- being the arrears of wages from 16.12.1976 to 16.01.1981. This finding is liable to be reversed for the reason that primarily the workman submitted his joining report on 27.4.1981, which implies that right from 16.12.1976 to 16.1.1981 he did not do any work. As observed in the impugned order, the respondent- workman attained the age of 58 years on 23.2.1978. As mentioned in the order dated 17.5.1989 passed by this Court in C.M. No.7992/1989 in C.W.P. No.904/1988 (the present petition) it has been observed that at the time of admission, learned Judges of the Division Bench by order dated 10.2.1988 stayed recovery of wages beyond 23.2.1978, when the applicant is supposed to have attained the age of 58 years. In view of the above discussed law, it is held that the workman superannuated at the age of 58 years, i.e., on 23.2.1978 whereas the learned Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 & Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 -5- Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has allowed the wages beyond this date. In these premises, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the workman shall be entitled to the wages only upto 23.2.1978 and not beyond that and, accordingly, Civil Writ Petition No.904 of 1988 is partly allowed. In C.W.P. No.7308 of 1988, the workman has claimed back- wages beyond 16.1.1981. As a corollary of the above discussion, it is held that the workman is not entitled to claim back-wages beyond 23.2.1978. Thus, Civil Writ Petition No.7308 of 1988 is dismissed in its entirety. Disposed of both the petitions accordingly. September 11, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE