JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. :— Frustration generated by lengthening shadows of interminable Court processes in the fall of ones life, has been the primary and root cause of our failure to end this unending proceeding. And it has introduced such cynicism in the respondent that even though the Court offered him Rs. 46151.60 deposited in this Court by the appellant pursuant to courts order dated January 27, 1981, keeping all his contentions open, the respondent declined to withdraw the amount and walked away from the Court. The sense of guilt is further accentuated by the fact that the respondent would not accept any legal assistance, presumably his faith in the legal profession has suffered total erosion, Add to this that he is completely hard of hearing so that any dialogue at the Court hearing is an exercise in futility. To depict our agony in no uncertain terms, we requested Dr. Y. S. Chitaley, senior counsel of this Court to assist the respondent who brusquely turned down the same. We requested learned advocates sitting in the Court to transmit our inquiry into the ears of the respondent but unless something is written down it is impossible to communicate with him. Out of sheer exasperation and faced with a blind alley yet in our total anxiety to avoid even a remote impression of injustice being done to a low paid employee of the appellant mills. choice and option being curtailed. we are forced to the conclusion to which we were otherwise unwilling to reach.

2. As graphically described by this Court in its judgment dated October 3, 1977 (reported in AIR 1978 SC 8), namely, "it is a fight between a Goliath and a dwarf", and therefore, the path, chalked out though far from legitimate satisfaction, we are left with no alternative and that is the raison detre for this order.

3. Respondent Shambhu Nath Mukherjee was serving with the appellant till his name was struck off rolls by the appellant by its order dated August 24, 1965. An industrial dispute was raised consequent upon the termination of service of the respondent which ultimately landed in this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 1970. This Court held that striking off the name of the workman from the rolls by the management is termination of his service and this termination constitutes retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as there was failure to comply with the mandatory pre-conditions for valid retrenchment, the termination was ab initio void and illegal. Accordingly this Court, affirming the Award of the Labour Court, held that the respondent continues to be in service of the appellant. By the time the Court disposed of the appeal on October 3, 1977, according to the appellant, the respondent had retired on superannuation under the rules applicable to him and, therefore, it was not possible to reinstate him but he would be entitled to the wages and other retirement benefits, Adopting this stance, the appellant did not permit the respondent to join service. The respondent thereupon filed this petition, inter alia, contending that this Court should enforce its order and judgment and direct the appellant to reinstate the respondent and to pay him all the back wages. On this Civil Miscellaneous Petition being moved, a notice of motion was taken out in response to which the appellant appeared and filed its affidavit in reply.

4. The contention put in the forefront is that the age of superannuation in respect of the category of employees to which the respondent belonged was 58 years and this age was prescribed pursuant to a settlement dated June 16, 1969. According to the appellant the respondent had declared his age as 36 years on July 7, 1951, in his application seeking employment with Swatantra Bharat Mills and also in the declaration-nomination form provided under the Employees, Provident Funds Act, 1952. Taking cue from these two declarations of the respondent, the appellant worked out the completion of the age of 58 years for retiremen