C.W.P. No.5862 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5862 of 1988 Date of Decision: 20.11.2009 The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala through its Managing Director .....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda another ....Respondents Present: Mr. Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the workman had claimed wages for the period from 01.01.1976 to 31.07.1980. The contention of the workman was that he had been prematurely retired on 31.12.1975, which was challenged before the Labour Court. He obtained a favourable award and when there was a direction for reinstatement, he filed his joining report on 30.06.1980 and for the period when the workman had been denied his wages, he made the claim. The contention of the management was that the date of birth of the C.W.P. No.5862 of 1988 -2- workman was 14.06.1920 and therefore, if he had been in service, he would have been superannuated on 14.06.1978. The Labour Court found that there was no specific Standing Order of contract between parties limiting the age of retirement at 58 years and taking also note of the fact that the Certified Standing Orders came into force on 16.01.1981, which make provisions of retirement at the age of 58 years, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, the Labour Court allowed the claim statement. 2. In my view, the law has been correctly applied by the Labour Court. There was a direction for reinstatement by the Labour Court and when the workman was making his joining report on 30.06.1980, he assumed that he is entitled to be in service. If the contention of the management had been that the workman was liable to be treated as superannuated, such a contention must have been taken even before the award had been passed directing reinstatement. The management was, therefore, not entitled to contend after the award was passed that the award could not be fully given effect to and that it must be taken that the workman was due for superannuation even earlier. Admittedly, there was no specific contract or terms of service specifying the age of superanuation to be 58 years. Nothing was brought out on record that there were other instances where the management had always treated the completion of 58 years as constituting the age of superannuation. The termination of employment is invariably C.W.P. No.5862 of 1988 -3- a certain event and the management can never make a retirement policy without letting the workmen know when their services are to be treated as coming to close. If the management did not have any specific contract to the effect, the workman was entitled to insist that he shall be deemed to be in service till his services were specifically terminated. The order under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is merely a sequel to an award that had been passed directing reinstatement and for wages and the claim itself had been only upto the date when he applied for rejoining duty pursuant to the award. The order of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, justified and there is no scope for intervention. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 20, 2009 Pankaj*