Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M.S.KARNIK, J
SHETKARI SAHAKARI SANGH LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DATTATRAY HINDURAO YADAV & ORS. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3779 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1464 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1629 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1631 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1635 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1639 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1644 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 1647 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2075 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 740 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2095 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2097 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2100 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2106 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2108 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2116 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 741 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2353 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2354 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2358 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2375 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2456 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2458 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 737 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 2465 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3224 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3230 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 3233 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 739 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 738 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4366 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3912 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3914 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3911 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11878 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3927 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3973 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3936 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3937 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3935 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3938 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11885 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3943 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3940 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3944 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3942 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3941 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11901 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11902 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11903 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3925 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11906 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3924 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3931 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3920 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3926 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 8217 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 8221 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 13056 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 13057 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12644 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4141 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4128 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4150 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12632 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12634 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4152 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3962 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3966 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4147 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4134 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3917 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3926 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11817 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 8221 OF 2020 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 13057 OF 2020 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12644 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 12627 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4143 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3966 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 3965 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 11911 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4151 OF 2021 | WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.S. Pakale, Vijay Vaidya, S.M. Katkar
For the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Pujari, AGP, Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP, Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP, Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP, Mr. Amit Singh, Vivek Patil, Mithun Khaire, Abhay Nevagi & Associates
The employer's unilateral reduction of the retirement age from 60 to 55 years was held illegal, affirming compliance with statutory Model Standing Orders and validating the employees' claims despite delays.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10 - Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to termination of employees’ services - Termination declared illegal - Age of retirement under Model Standing Orders was 60 years, unilaterally reduced to 55 years by employer without lawful sanction - Compensation awarded instead of reinstatement due to employees being beyond retirement age at the time of judgment. (Paras 3, 5, 14, 25)
(B) Principles of Equity - Laches and delays in approaching the court - Though reference was delayed, the dispute was alive at the time it was referred for adjudication; timely filing is not a strict barrier to seek remedy. (Paras 21, 22)
(C) Employment Law - Employers must comply with statutory provisions; unilateral changes to terms of employment violate due process and are unenforceable. (Paras 3, 14)
Facts of the case:
The employer tried to terminate several employees upon reaching 55 years of age, despite a standing order that stipulated 60 years as the retirement age - Employees sought legal redress after extended periods, citing illegal termination and seeking reinstatement and compensation.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court held the employer’s action illegal and awarded compensation instead of reinstatement due to the age of employees at the time of judgment.
Issues: The main issues were concerning the legality of the employer's unilateral reduction of retirement age and whether delay in filing claims barred the employees from relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Model Standing Orders prevailed over the employer’s policy, ruling that the unilateral reduction was illegal, and asserted that the timely consideration of disputes, despite delays, was warranted based on the facts of the case.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed and set aside, remitting matters back to the Labour Court for fresh decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employer unilaterally reduced retirement age. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. employer contends dispute delayed and claims stale. (Para 6 , 11) |
| 3. employees argue for justice based on earlier rulings. (Para 12 , 15) |
| 4. analysis of employee's claims and employer's defenses (Para 14 , 17) |
| 5. delay in claims does not bar live disputes. (Para 19 , 25) |
| 6. distinction between judgments in rem and in personam (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. court allows petitions, remits to labour court. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORAL ORDER :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.
2. As common issues are involved in the present Petitions the same are disposed by a common order.
3. The challenge in these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Ofcer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur whereby the reference is partly allowed. The Labour Court held that the petitioner (‘employer’ for short) illegally terminated the services of the respondent (‘employees’ for short) and directed the employer to pay compensation. The employees had crossed the age of retirement (60 years) as per the Model Standing Orders on the date of the impugned order and hence there was no question of reinstatement, hence compensation.
4. The controversy relates to reduction of the age of retirement of employees from 60 years to 55 years. Before the Labour Court, employees contended that the Model Standing Orders applicable stipulates the age of retirement as 60 years. Without following any procedure prescribed by law, the employer unilaterally reduced the age of retirement to 55 years. According to the employees, though the employer says that the employees stand retired upon attaining the age of 55 years in terms of ‘Nokarnama’, the same is nothing but illegal termination of the services amounting to otherwise dismissal. According to them, the ‘Nokarnama’ is contrary to the Model Standing Orders and therefore the same cannot be acted upon. Any action taken under the said ‘Nokarnama’, which does not have the sanction of law has to be termed ‘illegal’.
5. The employees, by a letter addressed to the employer, raised the demand for reinstatement with continuity and back wages. The letter was not replied by the employer. Between the years 2016 and 2018, the employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short). The reference is then made by the State Government for adjudication of the dispute under Section 10 of the said Act to the First Labour Court, Kolhapur. The terms of the reference for adjudication pertain to the illegal termination of the services of the employees by the employer.
6. Before the Labour Court, it was one of the contention of the employer that the reference sufers from delay and laches and therefore hopelessly barred by time. The employer urged that the claim of the employees is stale and hence, the reference deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. According to the employer, the employees accepted the retiral dues without murmur or protest and acquiesced to the action of the employer retiring them at the age of 55 years and hence precluded from raising a challenge to the said action, that too belatedly.
7. The Labour Court was of the opinion, that though the reference is belatedly filed, the dispute was live on the date of the reference and hence deserved to be adjudicated on merits.
The plea of delay and laches was turned down.
8. For convenience, the chart which was tendered by the employer at the time of hearing, containing the details of names of the petitioners/employees, Petition number, date of actual retirement at reduced age (55 years), date of retirement (60 years) as per Model Standing Orders, date of letter addressed to the Conciliation Ofcer and the date of reference is reproduced below:-
SR. NAME OF THE PETITIONER PETITION DATE OF WHEN 60 YRS DATE OF DATE OF
9.
