Agreements on retirement age must be binding and cannot be selectively questioned; interim relief extending employment beyond retirement age is generally inadvisable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The Petitioner-employer has filed these Petitions challenging the judgments and orders dated 20 February 2025 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court No.1, Kolhapur, dismissing its Revision Applications and confirming the orders dated 3 April 2024 and 19 June 2024 passed by the Labour Court, Kolhapur. By orders dated 19 June 2024, the Labour Court has allowed Applications at Exhibit U-2 filed by the Respondent-employees and has temporarily restrained the Petitioner-employer from superannuating the Respondents until they attain the age of 60 years. The Petition is thus filed challenging the interim orders passed by the Labour Court, as confirmed by the Industrial Court.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner-employer is engaged in manufacturing of cotton yarn (Spinning Mill) in its factory at Kolhapur. There are about 805 employees employed in the said factory. Shahu Soot Kapad Kamgar Sangh has been registered as representative and approved Union for Karveer Taluka. Respondent-Shankar Mahadeo Takmare was appointed with the Petitioner- employer on 1 January 1994 as Helper and later on promoted as Assistant Fitter. Respondent-Sanjay Pandurang Ghorpade joined the employment on 25 August 1991 as a Reliever. According to the Petitioner-employer, the age of retirement of employees employed in the Spinning Mill is 58 years. According to the Petitioner, an agreement was executed on 15 April 2006 between the Petitioner- Management and the employees under which the age of retirement was agreed as 58 years. That Respondent-employees accepted all the benefits under the agreement and were fully aware that they were due to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Respondent-Shankar Mahadeo Takmare was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on 20 June 2024 whereas Respondent-Sanjay Pandurang Ghorpade was to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on 5 April 2024. Accordingly, letters were issued by both the Respondents informing them about their retirements. Both the Respondents however approached Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) Nos. 19 of 2024 and 9 of 2024 seeking restraint order against the Petitioner-employer from retiring them before attaining age of 58 years. The Complaints were resisted by Petitioner-employer by filing Written Statements. Respondent- employees filed Applications at Exhibit U-2 seeking interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTP & PULP Act). By orders dated 3 April 2024 and 19 June 2024 the Labour Court allowed the Applications at Exhibit U-2 and has restrained the Petitioner-employer from superannuating the Respondents till they attain the age of 60 years during pendency of the Complaints.

4. Petitioner-employer filed Revision Application (ULP) Nos.18 of 2024 and 25 of 2024 and before Industrial Court, Kolhapur challenging the interim orders passed by the Labour Court on 3 April 2024 and 19 June 2024. By judgments and orders dated 20 February 2025, the Industrial Court has dismissed both the Revision Applications. Petitioner-employer has filed the present Petitions challenging the orders passed by the Industrial Court.

5. Mr. Jalisatgi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner- employer would submit that the Labour Court has grossly erred in granting interim relief in favour of the Respondent-employees by directing their continuance in service till attaining age of 60 years. He would submit that under the Settlement Agreement dated 15 April 2006, all the employees of the Petitioner-employer specifically agreed that age of retirement would be 58 years. That Respondents accepted all the benefits flowing through the Agreement dated 15 April 2006 and cannot selectively question applicability of covenant relating t