The court upheld an employer's right to legally reduce the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years under applicable labor laws.

JUDGMENT :

Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.

1. The present petition is filed assailing the judgment of the Industrial Court (Maharashtra) Nagpur Bench, Nagpur passed in Revision (ULP) No.211 of 2011. By way of the said judgment, the learned Industrial Court rejected the revision filed by the present petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order of Judge, 3^rd Labour Court at Nagpur passed in Complaint (ULP) Case No.206 of 2005 whereby, the Labour Court was pleased to reject the complaint filed by the petitioner.

2. Factual matrix of the case can be narrated as under :

2.1. The original complainant i.e. the petitioner herein filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Item No.1 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the MRTU and PULP Act”). As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has diploma in Mechanical Engineering and since 1967, he was working with respondent No.1 – the General Manager, Model Mills, Nagpur as Departmental Assistant Grade – II. Initially, his appointment was made by the Model Mills, Nagpur as apprentice and after completion of the same, he was confirmed in the same post. The Model Mill was taken over by respondent No.2 – the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Ltd. and they are governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as “BIR Act”). Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner acquired the status of employee within the meaning of Section 3 (13) of the BIR Act and even the corresponding provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act.

2.2. It is further contended that time and again he has been served with show cause notice/s, chargesheets and has face suspension order/s, the history of which is pleaded in the complaint. But the same would not be germane for deciding the present matter. It is further pleaded that on 01.03.2005, the complainant received a letter from respondent No.1 vide reference No.894 of 2005 informing him that he would be reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 31.05.2005 and his services would stand superannuated w.e.f. 31.05.2005 after office hours. The notice of superannuation was challenged in complaint before the learned Labour Court on a premise that the age of superannuation was not 58 years but 60 years and therefore the action of the management/respondent amounts to illegal termination.

2.3 The learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties and recording their evidence found that the complaint is without merit and therefore, it went on to dismiss the complaint. The learned Labour Court recorded a finding that the complainant has every right to challenge the notice of superannuation by filing the complaint. The learned Labour Court, therefore, went on to hold that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However on merits, the learned Labour Court recorded a finding that the notice of superannuation issued to the complainant attaining the age of 58 years is however legal. The learned Labour Court in para 26 of its judgment recorded that in view of the judgment reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 28 and 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 700, it is exclusive right of the employer to reduce the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years. The learned Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the respondent – employer was right in reducing the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years. On the basis above authority, the learned Labour Court rejected the complaint of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order of the learned Labour Court, the petitioner f