THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.6258, 6260, 6262, 6263, 6264, 6265, 6438, 7309, 7587 & 7588 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: In all these writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arises for consideration, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order: In all the writ petitions, petitioner is the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and respondent No.2 is the workman. It appears, the respondent-workmen were initially appointed in the Last Grade Service of the Petitioner-Board and thereafter they were promoted to higher post as Technicians, but they also fit into the definition of workmen under Regulation 13(3) of the Petitioner-Board. While that being so, it appears that before attaining the age of 58 years, the workmen were served with notice of retirement. Questioning the same, they had filed several writ petitions and obtained stay and continued till they attained the age of 60 years. The respondent-workmen were paid salary according to their entitlement upto the age of 60 years and thereafter, when the writ petitions came up for consideration, this Court directed the workmen to go before the Labour Court and prove that they are the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘I.D. Act’), therefore they have raised all these Industrial Disputes. In all these I.Ds., common award was passed, allowing the claim of workmen, holding that the order of retirement issued by the petitioner-Board retiring the respondent-workmen at the age of 58 years as illegal, since they are the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and they are entitled to be continued in service till they attain the age of 60 years as per clause 13.3 of Service Regulations of the Petitioner Board and they are entitled for all the consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, management filed the present writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing for Petitioner-Board Sri N.Rajeswara Rao tried to impress upon the Court that initially the respondent-workmen were appointed in the Last Grade Service, and since they promoted to Technician cadre, it must be deemed that they will not come within the definition of workmen under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and Regulation 13.3 would not be applicable to the case of respondent-workmen, therefore, the order of retirement retiring the respondent-workmen at the age of 58 years cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents Mr.A.K.Jayaprakash Rao submitted that the writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Once the respondent-workmen are found to be workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, Clause 13.3 of Service Regulations of the Petitioner-Board automatically applies to them and the respondent-workmen are entitled to be continued till they attain the age of 60 years and also entitled for all the benefits as such. The contention of the petitioner-Management that since the respondent- workmen were promoted to higher posts i.e. Technician cadre, it must be deemed that they are no more in the Last Grade Service, therefore they would not become workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act cannot be accepted. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.6258, 6260, 6262, 6263, 6264, 6265, 6438, 7309, 7587 & 7588 of 2005 7.2.2011