JUDGMENT :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel, with V.K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner - Mandli, and Ratna Bora, learned advocate for the respondents.

2. In this group of petitions, the central issue and subject matter which arises for consideration is similar and though in respect of each complaint and the concerned persons, learned Tribunal has passed separate orders, however, the contents of the separate orders, the reasoning and observations, the findings and conclusions and final directions in all individual/separate orders are similar. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents - workmen have made common submissions and also stated that even the learned Tribunal has, by an order, consolidated all complaints and that the issue for consideration are common in all matters and therefore, all petitions may be heard and decided as single proceedings. Under the circumstances, all petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. The petitioner has brought under challenge the order dated 29.12.2006 and other similar orders passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in complaint(IT) No. 689 of 1998 and other cognate – identical complaints filed by similarly situated complainants/workmen. By such different but similar orders, the learned Tribunal has set aside the action of the petitioner Mandli in relieving the complainants on completing 55 years of age prescribed for superannuation and has directed the petitioner Mandli to pay difference of salary to the complainants by treating them in service until they completed 60 years of age. The petitioner Mandli is aggrieved by the said decision and directions, hence, present petitions.

4. So far as factual background involved in and leading to presentation of this group of petitions are concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mandli and learned counsel for the respondent workmen that:-

4.1 The petitioner is a federal cooperative society incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and is engaged in activity of procuring, producing and marketing milk and milk products.

4.2 It has established a dairy plant where it employs more than 100 employees.

4.3 According to the petitioner Mandli, under applicable standing orders 55 years of age is fixed as age for superannuation for its employees and the employees are made to retire on attaining age of superannuation i.e. 55 years.

4.4 Some of the employees claimed that age of superannuation in their particular case was fixed at 58 years or 60 years. Some employees claimed that in their cases, appointment letters mentioned age of 58 years as age for superannuation but they were subsequently informed that the age for superannuation was revised to 60 years. On the other hand, other group of employees claimed that the age for superannuation should be fixed at 60 years and not 55 years.

4.5 It appears that in this background an industrial dispute with demand to fix 60 years of age as age for superannuation was raised.

4.6 The appropriate Government considered the said demand and response of the petitioner Mandli and referred the said demand for adjudication vide order of reference dated 4.2.1997. The said order of reference was registered by learned Tribunal has Reference (IT) No. 38 of 1997.

4.7 While the said reference was pending for adjudication, when certain workmen (i.e. present respondents) were relieved from service (as they completed 55 years of age) on the ground that they had reached age of superannuation prescribed under the standing orders, such workmen invoked provisions under Section 33A read with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and filed individual/separate complaints in a Reference which was pending at relevant time i.e. Reference (IT) No. 38 of 1997. In the said complaints, before the learned Tribunal the comp