THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 21265 of 1997 ORDER: This writ petition has been moved questioning the correctness of the award passed on 18.10.1996 in ID No. 139 of 1995 by the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent joined the service of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as IV Grade Clerk on 3.9.1956. He was subsequently promoted as a UD Clerk on 28.3.1989 and while he was working as a Tax Inspector with the Municipal Corporation, he had retired from service on the afternoon of 31.12.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The 1st respondent appears to have moved ID No. 139 of 1995 before the Labour Court claiming that he is entitled to continue in service until he attains the age of 60 years and therefore he sought for reinstatement into service and for payment of arrears of salary with effect from 1.1.1994 onwards. The industrial dispute was raised by the 1st respondent in terms of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the petitioner herein has not contested the said industrial dispute in spite of receiving the notice, it was set ex parte. The 1st respondent – workman has been examined and he had also marked Exs.W1, W4. The order of retirement on superannuation basis dated 29.12.1992 was marked as Ex.W1, while the orders of the state government dated 16.6.1977 and 21.4.1986 are marked as Exs.W2 and W3. The representation said to have been submitted by the 1st respondent herein to the State Government was marked as Ex.W4. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not bothered to examine as to whether a Tax Inspector can be considered to be a workman at all within the meaning of the definition `workman’ spelt out under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, the Tribunal also has not bothered to examine as to whether the orders passed by the State Government and marked as Exs.W2 and W3 which have spelt out that only workman and that too of certain specified classes of workmen are entitled to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years, will be applicable to the case of the 1st respondent or not? The award passed by the Labour Court has proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner herein who is the respondent has not chosen to controvert the statements made by the petitioner before it and hence it has passed the award. It is hardly a satisfactory way of deciding the cases. The Labour Court was required to examine as to whether the petitioner before it is legally entitled for the relief prayed for or not. Until and unless it arrives at a finding that he is a workman and that the age of superannuation for such class of workmen is 60 years, but not 58 years, it could not have entertained an application moved under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Only in the event that the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the age of superannuation in cases of employees occupying the position, as was occupied by the 1st respondent herein is 60 yerars, it could have concluded that the retirement of such persons on attaining the age of 58 years amounts to premature termination of employment and hence it could not have justifiably entertained the application under section 2- A(2). For the failure of the Labour Court to have carried out such an exercise, the award passed in ID No. 139 of 1995 deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The I.D. No. 139 of 1995 stands remitted back for fresh consideration. It is needless to observe that both parties will be provided opportunity to lead evidence afresh. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. --------- ----- - knk 14.07.2009