JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.08.2011, passed by the learned presiding Officer, labour Court, Junagadh in Reference Case No. 126 of 1999 passed below Exh.43, whereby labour Court while allowing the reference held the action of the petitioner-Corporation to retire respondent-workman on 31.10.1995 as illegal and further directing that the respondent-workman be treated to have retired from 31.10.1997 instead of 31.10.1995 and further directed to pay all the benefits to the respondent-workman including salary for a period of two years from 31.10.1995 to 31.10.1997.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Sejal Mandaviya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Samir Gohil for the respondent-workman.

3. The facts arising to this petition are stated as under:

3.1 It is the case of the respondent-workman that the respondent-workman has joined as the Assistant Turner in erstwhile-Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter for short ‘SSRTC’) and the same was owned by the Saurashtra Government thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Turner. At the time when he joined the service the retirement age prescribed by the Corporation was 60 years, however, subsequently upon creation of State of Gujarat when Gujarat State Road Transport (hereinafter for short ‘GSRTC’) was created the employees of SSRTC were absorbed in the GSRTC where the retirement age was 58 years. Though by Circular no. 139 the retirement age limit of the employees working in Saurashtra region of SSRTC and working in the workshop was decided to be 60 years, however, the petitioner was made to retire on completing 58 years on 31.10.1995 whereas he should have been retired on completion of 60 years on 31.10.1997 as the initial appointment of the workman was at SSRTC. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Circular no. 139.

3.2 Earlier when the reference no. 126/1999 was preferred by the respondent-workman challenging the action of petitioner- Corporation to retire on completion of 58 years with effect from 31.10.1995. The labour Court has passed an award on 5.3.2003 and allowed the reference and directed to grant all the benefits from 31.10.1995 till 31.10.1997 as if the petitioner was continued in services. The said order was challenged by the petitioner Corporation by preferring SCA No. 667 of 2004 therein the matter was remanded back to the labour Court vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2010, this Court had directed and observed that it will be open for the parties to lead evidence to show what would have been the position, if the respondent would have been continued in SSRTC and would not have been absorbed in GSRTC. The parties were permitted to lead evidence before the labour Court and the labour Court was also directed to consider the aspect of delay as the reference was preferred in the year 1999, after the respondent-workman was made to retire in the year 1995.

3.3 The aforesaid judgment dated 27.10.2010, in Special Civil Application No. 667 of 2004 though is not on record the same was made available by the advocates for the parties during the course of arguments. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of remand the matter proceeded before the labour Court and the labour Court framed the issued and considered the question as to whether the respondent-workman can be said to be the employee of Saurashtra Government/SSRTC or GSTRC. The labour Court permitted the respondent–workman to file additional statement of claim to which petitioner-original respondent before the labour Court also filed written statement. However, in the award the labour Court is observed that the petitioner – Corporation did not produced any evidence after the matter was remanded back and was heard afresh nor any oral evidence was produced. Ultimately, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration of Circular No. 139 dated 27.01.1961, the labour Court held that action of the peti