ORDER

1. Since this batch of petitions is involving same question, therefore, it is analogously heard.

For the purpose of convenience, the facts of W.P. No.1442/2020 are being taken up. All the petitions are listed for final hearing in motion stage in pursuance to the order dated 18.1.2021, accordingly, parties are ready to argue the matter finally and it is finally heard.

A petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order dated 30.9.2019 (Annexure-P/13) passed in Case No.64/18 IDR by Labour Court, Satna deciding reference made to it by the office of Labour Commissioner, Indore, as the dispute was raised under section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1947’). The question of reference was

“as to whether Siya Sharan Pandey s/o Ram Milan Pandey has been retired from service prior to the prescribed age of superannuation? If yes, then whether the order of superannuation is legal and appropriate? If not, then what benefit can be granted to the workman superannuated and what direction should be given to the employer in this regard?”

2. The reference was answered by the Labour Court after framing as many as three issues holding that the order of superannuation of the applicant (respondent herein) dated 26.10.2015 retiring him w.e.f. 31.1.2016 was illegal and unjustified and as such, the same was set aside and direction was issued to the employer (present petitioner) to allow the respondent to be continued in service till the age of 60 years and further directed that he be also paid back wages at the rate of 50% from the date when he superannuated from service till the date of order.

3. The factual matrix of the case relevant for considering the question raised may be thus;

(3.1) The respondent had worked in the petitioner’s organisation w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till 31.1.2016. His last drawn pay was Rs.24,426/-. He was retired after attaining the age of 58 years. As per the applicant (respondent herein) his superannuation was contrary to the amendment made by the State of Madhya Pradesh, published in State Gazette on 28.6.2014 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, as such, retiring him w.e.f. 31.1.2016 was illegal as the age of superannuation has already been determined as 60 years. The respondent challenged the said action of the petitioner saying that his superannuation comes within the definition of retrenchment according to the definition provided under the provisions of the Act, 1947. He raised the dispute seeking declaration of order dated 26.10.2015 retiring him w.e.f. 31.1.2016 illegal and void and further claimed that he may be allowed to continue till the age of 60 years and be also paid salary from the date of superannuation till the date of reinstatement or attaining the age of 60 years.

(3.2) Reply has been filed by the petitioner taking stand therein that according to the order of appointment and the terms and conditions contained therein, the age of superannuation was determined as 58 years and the amendment on which reliance has been placed by the employee is not applicable to the petitioner’s organisation.

(3.3) The Labour Court entertained the reference made to it by the Labour Commissioner, Indore, and answered vide impugned award dated 30.9.2019 holding that the order dated 26.10.2015 retiring the respondent w.e.f. 31.1.2016 at the age of 58 years was illegal and void and directed him to be entitled to get 50% of back wages till the date of attaining the age of 60 years.

(3.4) Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, this petition has been filed by the petitioner raising solitary ground that the impugned award is without jurisdiction as the petitioner/company is a group of cement manufacturing industry engaged in manufacturing of cement and governs with the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act, 1951’) and as per Schedule-I of the said Act, cem