Important Point - It is well settled position in law that the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be, it would only correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior Court or Tribunals, where the orders are passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 24 January 2001 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune (for short “the Industrial Court”) in Complaint (ULP) No. 79 of 2000 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the Complaint of the respondent declaring that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act,1971 (for short “MRTU & PULP Act”) and has directed to continue the respondent in the employment of the petitioners as “Web Offset Boller” till the age of 60 years, that is upto 31 March 2002. The operative order passed by the Industrial Court reads thus:

“ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.

2. It is hereby held and declared that the Respondents have engaged unfair labour practice under Items 9 & 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Respondents are hereby directed to cease and desist from engaging such unfair labour practice.

3. The Respondents are hereby directed to continue the complainant in its employment as Web Offset Baller till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. upto 31.3.2002.

4. During the pendency of this case, if the complainant is unemployed because of compulsory retirement order of the Respondent Corpn., the complainant is entitled for all the monetary benefits for the intervening period, which should be paid by the Respondents to the Complainant within one month.

5. Cost of this proceeding is quantified at Rs. 1000/- which should be paid by the Respondents to the Complainant. The Respondent Corpn. Should bear its own costs.

6. This order shall take effect after one month from today.”

FACTS:

2. At the relevant time and for about 33 years, the respondent was in the employment of the petitioner-Corporation, as an unskilled Class IV employee. Upto January 1991, he was working as a “Boller” (Class IV) in the pay scale of Rs. 230 - Rs. 430 (revised pay scale Rs. 829 - Rs. 1724). By an order dated 19 January 1991, in pursuance of the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner dated 10 January 1991, the respondent is stated to be appointed on promotion as “Web Offset Boller” in the pay scale Rs. 360 to Rs. 586. This order recorded that this promotion was adhoc and was on a probation for a period of two years. The pay bills which are placed on record and more particularly pay bill dated 24 June 1999 issued to the respondent, though indicated the designation of the respondent as a “Web Offset Boller” however, showed the respondent in Class IV. The age of retirement for the employees in class IV was 60 years of age and for the employees falling in Class III, the age of retirement was 58 years.

3. The petitioners issued a letter dated 17 December 1999 to the respondent informing the respondent, that on 3 March 2000 the respondent would be completing 58 years of age and according to the service rules, he would be superannuated on 31 March 2000 after office hours. The respondent through is workers' Union viz. “Pune Mahanagarpalika Kamgar Union” submitted a representation dated 10 January 2000 that the respondent was Class IV employee and therefore, as per the Rules, the age of retirement would be 60 years and that he was being inappropriately retired at the age of 58 years. This letter was responded by the petitioners' Deputy Commissioner by its letter dated 5 February 2000 addressed to the said Union, inter-alia stating that with effect from 10 January 1991, the respondent was appointed as “Web Offset Boller” in the higher pay scale which was a promotional post and, therefore, he ceased to be a Class IV employee, as the promotional post as was not falling in the inferior services (Class IV), therefore, his superannuation at the age of 58 years was justified.

4. The respondent being aggrieved by this action on the part of the petitioners superannuating him at the age of 58 years, approached the Industrial Cou