The retirement age for school employees is determined by state government rules, not outdated bye-laws, ensuring legitimate employment practices.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 award in I.D No.46/2022 on the file of the Labour Court, Kannur. I.D. No.46/2022 is an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act') to adjudicate the following issue:

“Whether the termination from service of Smt. Thankamoni C.T., Clerk, PES Vidyalaya, Edat, Payyannur-670327, at the age of 56 by the management of PES Vidyalaya, is justifiable or not? If not, what relief is she entitled to?”

2. The 1^st respondent was working as an 'Ayah' at the PES Vidayalaya since 14-06-1990. According to the 1^st respondent from the year 1997 she was working as a clerk. The date of birth of the 1^st respondent is 31-05-1963 and on the premise that going by the applicable bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBSE'), the retirement age applicable to the 1^st respondent was 56, the 1^st respondent was compulsorily retired from service on 31-05-2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the 1^st respondent, the Rule followed in the school till then was that the employees would retire only on attaining the age of 58. It was the case of the 1^st respondent that since the eligible age for pension from the Employees Pension Scheme is 58 the 1^st respondent will be put to serious prejudice and hardships if she is made to retire at the age of 56.

3. The Labour Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the unilateral reduction of retirement age by the management was unjustified and contrary to the CBSE Affiliation bye-laws and also to the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act and on the basis of the above finding the Labour Court concluded that the 1^st respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,14,880/- on the basis that had the 1^st respondent not been compulsorily retired from school on 31-05-2019 she would be entitled to continue till 31-05-2021. The amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the last drawn salary of the 1^st respondent calculated for the period of

2 years i.e., from 31-05-2019 till 31-05-2021.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 award is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that Ext.P2 is the CBSE Affiliation bye-law. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 5.3 of Ext.P2 the management of the school was required to define the Service Rules of teaching and non-teaching staff on the lines of the employees of the appropriate Government. It is submitted that the term 'appropriate Government' is defined in Clause 1.3.29 of the CBSE Affiliation bye-law. It is submitted that the term 'appropriate Government' has been given the same meaning that is given to the term in Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTE Act'). It is submitted that by virtue of the provisions of (a) (ii) (A) of the 2009 Act, 'appropriate Government' in this case means the State Government. It is submitted that the age of retirement of State Government employees is fixed at 56 in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 60 of the Kerala Service Rules (Part-I). It is submitted that the CBSE Affiliation bye- laws which were relied upon by the Labour Court are the superceded bye-laws and the finding that the retirement age was not 56 as per the CBSE Affiliation bye-laws is on the basis of a notification issued on 18-02-2014 as Circular No.22 bearing NoCBSE/AFF/Circular/2014. The learned counsel has placed for my consideration a copy of the aforesaid circular. It is submitted tha