SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 3968

High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
The Coimbatore District Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd., (Rep. by its General Manager) R.S. Puram (PO)
Versus
The Presiding Officer Labour Court Coimbatore & Another
W.P.No.10715 of 2003 & W.M.P.No. 13542 of 2003
Decided on : 19-09-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Anbarasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 - K.V. Shanmuganathan, Advocate.

Validity of superannuation based on medical examination and reasonableness of refusal to accept superannuation.

Headnote:

Age Dispute - Employment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act - [Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act] - [Summary of Acts and Sections discussed by the court]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, superannuated employees based on medical examination indicating age over 60. Dispute arose when one employee refused to accept superannuation and claimed back wages.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the medical examination and superannuation reasonable, and held the employee's non-employment as unreasonable. Modified the back wages to 25% based on the petitioner's offer.

Issues: Dispute over superannuation based on medical examination and refusal to accept superannuation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the validity of superannuation based on medical examination and found the refusal to accept superannuation as unreasonable.

Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with the modification of back wages to 25% and directed the petitioner to pay the said sum within two weeks.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner, the Coimbatore District Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited, represented by its General Manager, aggrieved by the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court in I.D.No. 262 of 1997 dated 13.11.2000 has filed the present writ petition challenging the said award to quash the same with a consequential direction to drop further proceedings in C.P.No.141 of 2001.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Stores is a Cooperative Society, popularly known as "Chinthamani" registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Store used to purchase essential commodities such as Rice, Dhal, Wheat, spices, pulses, etc., and after being processed the commodities would be distributed to other stores for the purpose of sale at reasonable rates to the consumers. When the business of the petitioner store was in its peak, it has engaged nearly 100 women for cleaning, winnowing, brooming and other such purposes. All of them were uneducated and they did not produce any certificate or proof to enter their date of birth. In the year 1992, after twenty years of service, a large number of them were found to be old and they proved to be ineffective in carrying out their work. Further, they were not able to cope up with the work load, which gradually increased. Therefore, the Management referred them for proper medical examination in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and the Medical Board also examined them. On receipt of the medical reports, the Management issued notices to some of them, who were certified to have crossed 60 years. On that basis, they were superannuated based on the medical reports. In this process, 13 employees were certified to have crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.7.1996 and out of 13, nine of them agreed and accepted their superannuation and left the service. The second respondent is one such employee, who refused to accept her superannuation. When she joined the service of the petitioner stores on 1.8.1975, she gave her age as 35 years. Therefore, when she appeared before the Medical Board, she gave her age as 52 years as on 20.7.1992. But the Medical Board has fixed her age as 56 years as on 20.7.1992. On the basis of the certificate furnished by the Medical Board, the second respondent was also given a notice dated 11.7.1996 and it was acknowledged by her on 22.7.1996. In the said notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner had crossed the age of 60 years and on that basis the petitioner fixed the date of retirement on 31.7.1996. Again another notice was sent to the second respondent on 16.7.1996 specifically mentioning that she will be retired from service on 31.7.1996 since the Medical Board has certified that the second respondent has crossed the age of 60 years as on 31.7.1996. After the second respondent was ordered to retire from service, aggrieved by the said order retiring her from service on 31.7.1996, she raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.262 of 1997 before the first respondent Presiding Officer, the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Labour Court has passed the present award dated 13.11.2000 in I.D.No.262 of 1997 to the effect that the retirement of the second respondent from service on 31.7.1996 was not correct. On that basis, the Labour Court awarded 50% of the back wages. Aggrieved by the said award directing payment of 50% of the back wages, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the second respondent along with 12 other employees joined the service of the petitioner on 1.8.1975 without producing any proof in support of the real date of birth. However, when they became older they were not able to cope up with the mounting work which increased in the petitioner Stores. As a result, the Management has referred them for proper medical examination in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital. The Medical Board also on p




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top