CWP No.15305 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.15305 of 1990 Date of decision : 17.5.2011 Printing & Stationery Department, Chandigarh .........Petitioner Vs. Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh and another ..........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate and Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondents --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? --- K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :- 1. The writ petition is at the instance of the Printing and Stationery Department through its Controller of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, assailing the award of the Labour Court accepting the reference sought at the instance of 2nd respondent herein. The dispute that gave rise to the reference for adjudication was that he had been retired on 31.5.1987 on attaining the age of 58 years when he ought to have been retained, till he completed 60 years and superannuated thereon. His contention was that as per FR 56, he CWP No.15305 of 1990 -2- was workman and entitled to be treated as such under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While under FR 56 every Government servant shall retire from the service on the last date of the month in which he attained the age of 58 years, the exception that it provides for under Clause (b) is, a 'workman' who is governed by the Rules, shall retire from the service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attained the age of 60 years. 2. Adverting to the nature of work, which the 2nd respondent was carrying on, the Tribunal held that the work was not supervisory, as contended by the Management but a skilled work that would fall within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act. The Labour Court's finding has been on sifting of evidence tendered before it with due regard given to the composition and nature of work and being a finding rendered on a pure question of fact, I find no reason to interfere with the same. 3. The award passed, upholding the claim of the petitioner that he shall be deemed to have been retired w.e.f. 31.5.1989 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, is upheld and the monetary benefits, as directed by the award, shall stand confirmed. 4. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 17.5.2011 akm