bsb

IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL

CIVIL

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT

WRIT

WRIT PETITION NO. 8060 OF 2006

PETITION NO. 8060 OF 2006

PETITION NO. 8060 OF 2006

Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

... Petitioner

V/s

Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Nokar Union

... Respondent

Mr. K.S. Bapat for Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare for the

petitioner.

Mr. Abhay Nevagi with Mr. Yogesh Paranjape i/by Paras

Kuhad & Associates for the respondent.

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM: SMT.

SMT.

SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.

NISHITA MHATRE, J.

NISHITA MHATRE, J.

DATED:

DATED:

DATED: 21ST AUGUST, 2007.

21ST AUGUST, 2007.

21ST AUGUST, 2007.

P.C.

P.C.

P.C.:

1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the

Industrial Court dated 19.8.2006. The case of the

petitioner is that it had a right to reduce the age of

the retirement by passing a resolution. According to

the petitioner, as per the Board’s resolution dated

30.3.1999, the age of retirement was reduced to 58 years

from 60 years. 31 employees were retired as a result of

the implementation of the Board’s resolution. Some of

the employees have filed a complaint under Item 1 of

Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act contending

that they were entitled to continue in employment till

2

the age of 60 years as that was the age of retirement

under the Model Standing Orders which govern their

service conditions. The Labour Court has held that the

complainants i.e. the respondents herein, had proved

that the age of retirement was 60 years and that the

petitioner could not have retired the employees at the

age of 58.

2. The revision application filed by the petitioner has

been dismissed. Both the Courts below have held that

the workmen, on whose behalf the complaint was filed and

affected by the Board’s resolution dated 30.3.1999, were

entitled to wages upto the age of 60 years.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends

that only one workman had stepped into the witness box

to prove that he was entitled to wages during the period

of unemployment for two years. The other workmen had

not led any evidence. It is also submitted that the

petitioner had a right to terminate the services by

reducing the age of retirement under the contract of

service.

4. Both, the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, in

my view, have for cogent reasons allowed the complaint.

Both the Courts below have held that the Model Standing

3

Orders apply to the workmen and the age of retirement

could not have been reduced to 58 years.

5. As regards the back wages, the submission of the

learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

The Labour Court has considered the fact that the

petitioner had illegally reduced the age of retirement

by a resolution and, therefore, the workmen concerned

were entitled to continue in service till the age of 60

years and they were also entitled to be paid two years’

wages.

6. Petition rejected.

.....