M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the management against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of Second appeal to the Labour Court under S. 41 (3) of the A, P. Shops and Establishments act, 19. 66.

( 2 ) AS there has been considerable litigation in this matter earlier which has gone upto Supreme Court at two stages, it is necessary to state the facts from the very beginning of the dispute.

( 3 ) THE dispute between the appellant and the Workman, the 2nd respondent, is in relation to the age of retirement of the workmen in the appellant establishment.

( 4 ) THERE was a settlement between the management and the workmen under sec. 18 (1) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 on 25-4-1983 under which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55 years. The settlement was to be in force upto 30-6-1986 and the next settlement, incorporating practically the same terms, was again entered into on 4-2-1987 under sec. 18 (1) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. There is no dispute that these settlements are under Sec. 18 (1 ).

( 5 ) WHILE so, the Management issued a notice to the workman on 20-11-1986 informing him that he is to retire, on, superannuation at his 55th year, the exact date of retirement being 21-5-1987. Questioning the said notice, the workman filed a petition under Sec. 41 (1) of the a. P. Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 27-4-1987. The Authority under the Act (herein after called the Authority) is the Assistant commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II. The Workman contended that the letter amounted to termination of his services by the Management on the ground of retirement on 21-5-1987. The Management filed a counter before the said Authority refuting the various allegations that were made in the application. The workman filed a stay application. The said stay petition was rejected by the Authority. He, however, did not file any Second Appeal under sec. 41 (3) before the Labour Court questioning the order of the Authority refusing to stay nor did be seek an early disposal of his first appeal pending before the authority. Instead, he filed a writ petition in the High Court straight-away questioning the proceedings of the Management dated 20-11-1986 and sought a direction that the said proceedings seeking to retire him on 21-5-1987 should be declared as bad and also for grant of a declaration that the action of the Authority in not granting stay is illegal. The said writ petition came up before P. A. Choudary, J,on 20-7-1987. While accepting that Section 40 (3) of the act is not a provision intended for fixing an age for superannuation for workmen, the learned Judge proceeded to bold that the Authority under the Act could, even apart from Sec. 40 (3), go into the question whether the retirement, by proceedings of the Management dated 20 11-1986, was unreasonable . As, according to the learned Judge, termination could only be for a reasonable cause, be observed that it was open to the workman to question the said order before the Authority under the Act as amounting to an unreasonable termination. The learned Judge noticed that the workman had earlier approached the authority well before 21-5-1987, the date of superannuation and observed that inasmuch as the date of superannuation had expired during pendency of the writ petition, the Authority should treat the earlier first appeal filed by the workman against the orders of the Management dated 20-11-1986, as an appeal against his retirement itself which took place on 22-5-1987. He therefore, in effect, remanded the matter and directed the Authority to examine whether the retirement of the workman could be treated as an unreasonable termination of the contract of service.

( 6 ) AGAINST the above said judgment of P. A. Choudary, J. the Management preferred Writ Appeal No. 1225 /

Click Here to Read the rest of this document