Standing Order 20-A provides for an obligatory retirement age of 60 years for operatives, with an extension up to 63 years for male operatives who continue to be efficient. The employer has an obligation to continue the employment of a male operative beyond the age of 60 years if he continues to be efficient, and the operative has a right to be continued in service till the extended limit of 63 years, provided he remains efficient.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Desai, J.—By consent of Advocates, the matter is taken on Board for hearing. The Advocate for Respondent No. 1 waives service.

2. In this matter we had given certain directions in the Appeals from interim orders and in pursuance of those directions, necessary order has been obtained from Hon'ble the Chief Justice and then Writ Petition referred to a Division Bench. It is now taken up for hearing since in our opinion if we give judgment in the Writ Petition, that will serve the requirements of the parties as also dispose of the Appeals automatically. Once the Writ Petition is disposed of, the Appeal (viz. Appeal No. 1282 of 1989) will not survive and the same can be disposed of by an appropriate order to that effect.

3. It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail in the Writ Petition and it is sufficient to deal with the law point which arises. However, the law point arises in the following back-ground.

4. The petitioners before us are a silk cotton textile undertaking taken over by the Government of India in 1983 and thereafter placed under the management and control of the National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Limited. Respondent No. 1 to the writ petition was an employee working as a 'doffer jobber' in the Spinning Department of the petitioners. The petition raises the question of interpretation and application of Standing Order 20-A of the Standing Orders for Operative which Standing Order is to be found in Chapter XIV at page 172 of the Handbook of Service Conditions of Operatives and Clerks in the Bombay Cotton Textile Industry issued by the Mill-owners' Association, Bombay, in October 1980. The 1st respondent workman was employed by Tata Mills Ltd., from 1st November, 1950 and at the time of employment had given his year of birth to be 1929. In 1986 he sought to alter the same to 1932 but was not able to tender sufficient material or convincing explanation in support of the change sought and hence the purported change of the year of birth was not accepted by the petitioners who are the present employers. According to the petitioners the workman accordingly attained the age of 60 years on 1st January, 1989. On 15th December, 1988 he had been served with a notice intimating that he would stand superannuated with effect from 1st January, 1989.

5. After receipt of the said notice dated 15th December, 1988 the workman, i.e. Respondent No. 1, challenged the same under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court at Bombay. It was the contention of the workman and under the relevant Standing Order, viz. Standing Order 20-A, he had a right to continue in employment till the age of 63 if he remained efficient and therefore the purported superannuation was in violation of the said Standing Order. Hence, according to the workmen, an unfair labour practice had been perpetrated which was covered under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the aforesaid Act. The complaint was numbered as Complaint (ULP) No. 1520 of 1988. In the said complaint an application for interim relief was thereafter filed by the workman, which is Exhibit-B to the writ petition. On the said application the learned Member of the Industrial Court, viz. Respondent No. 2 herein, passed an order on 31st March, 1989, which is at Exhibit-'F' to the writ petition, upholding the contention of the workman for the interim relief sought. Accordingly he confirmed the ad interim Order dated 28th December, 1988, which is at Exhibit -'D' to the writ petition, it is this order on 31st March, 1989 that was challenged in the writ petition.

6. As stated earlier, the challenge turns on the proper interpretation and application of Standing Order 20-A and we shall immediately, therefore, advert to the same. The said Standing Order reads as under:-

"20-A. An operative shall retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years, b