JUDGMENT - Mahatre Nishita, J.:—This petition impugns the order of the Industrial Court whereby the Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner has not made out a case under Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act and has also not been able to explain the delay in filing the complaint.

2.The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: 

The petitioner was employed in the retail cloth shop of respondent No. 1 mill. He was issued a retirement memo on 26-11-1989 retiring him w.e.f. 9-6-1990 at the age of 60 years. The petitioner challenged this action of the respondent-mill by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 758 of 1990. The main contention raised in the complaint was that the petitioner should be continued in service till the age of 63 years just as the mill workers are continued till the age of 63 years. According to the petitioner, retiring him at the age of 60 years attracted the provisions of Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act. The contention was that two sets of service conditions could not apply to those employed in the retail cloth shop and persons working in the mill when they do the same kind of w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document