In the absence of any rule or regulation or Standing Order governing the age of superannuation, the employer cannot lawfully discharge the services of an employee on the ground of superannuation.

1. - The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner company could lawfully discharge the service of three of its employees on the ground of superannuation at the time when there were no conditions relating to superannuation in the contract or service rules or regulations governing the employment of such workmen. The contention on behalf of the petitioner company is that according to the past practice, the company was entitled to discharge its employees on the ground of attaining the age of superannuation after they became 58 years of age. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of respondent No. 2, Rajasthan Audhyogic Karmchari Sangh, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as `the Union") representing the concerned workmen, that in the absence of any condition in the contract of service or the rules or regulations governing the employment of such workmen or standing orders duly certified in accordance with law the service of the workmen already in employment could not be dispensed with by the company on attaining the age of 58 years, but such employees were entitled to continue in service as long as they were physically and mentally fit to serve the employer.

2. The three concerned employees are Jamnalal, Manohar Singh and Daya Ram. The respective dates of birth and the dates of attaining age of 58 years and 60 years by the aforesaid three employees are as under :

3. All the aforesaid three persons were employed as clerks by the petitioner M/s Mewar Textile Mills Ltd., Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") and they were discharged from the service of the Company by the notices dated August 31, 1973 with effect from September 1, 1973 on the ground that they have passed the age of superannuation. They were directed to collect the amount of gratuity and other dues payable to them by the Company from the Accounts Section. The Rajasthan Audhyogic Karmchari Sangh, Bhilwara espousing the cause of the aforesaid employees raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the question as to whether the termination of the employment of the aforesaid three employees was legal and valid, to the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur. The case set up by the Union was that as there was no regulation governing the conditions of service of the employees of the petitioner Company regarding the age of superannuation and as other persons who had attained the age of 58 years were still working in the employment of the petitioner Company, the concerned employees could not have been discharged from service by the Company on the plea of their having attained the age of superannuation. The Union prayed that the three employees he taken back in the employment of the Company and they may be paid all their dues from the date of their discharge from service. The case set up by the petitioner Company before the Industrial Tribunal was that the workmen employed by the Company could be retired after attaining the age of 58 years and to retain after attaining the age of 58 years and to retain them in service thereafter was in the sole discretion of the management of the Company and that they did not thereafter possess any subsisting right to continue in service after attaining the age of 58 years.

4. The Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur by its Award dated March 2. 1976 held that it was not disputed that under the Rules and Regulations then prevelant in the Company, age of superannuation was not prescribed. The Tribunal held that the management was unable to prove the allegation that in actual practice the management of the Company has been retiring its employees