The court upheld the classification of the respondent as a workman, impacting retirement age entitlements, despite appellant's claims of managerial status.

Judgment Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 30.10.2017 passed in WP(c) No.23538 of 2012 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petition.

2. The main issue for consideration in this Writ Appeal is “Whether the first respondent herein is a workman or holding a managerial post?”

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein entered the service of the appellant in the year 1981. The contention of the first respondent is that he falls within the category of workmen and therefore, as per the standing orders, he is entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years instead of 58 years which is the retirement age of an employee who is working in a capacity of an administrative supervisory nature.

3. The learned Single Judge relying on the statement made on oath in the counter affidavit filed in O.P.No.7353/1993 held that, the first respondent herein belongs to the workmen category. This position is clearly evident from paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit which has been reproduced in the impugned order itself. Thus the Writ Petition was disposed of and being aggrieved, the appellant filed this Writ Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent herein was drawing more wages. Therefore, he would fall under the category of Managerial/Supervisory post. The learned Single Judge, without considering this aspect came to the conclusion that the first respondent herein is a workmen. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and this Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is on the admission of the appellant in the counter affidavit, the learned single judge held that the first respondent herein belongs to the workmen category and, therefore, he is entitled for superannuation at the age of 60 years. No error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hence this Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai and Smt.Aswathy N., learned counsel for the respondents.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v Mahadeo Krishna Naik ( 2025 KHC 6152 ) has held that any person who is guilty of making contradictory representations before the two different courts would amount to fraud on the Court. In the instant case, the appellant has categorically pleaded in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit that the first respondent herein belongs to workmen category. The present Writ Appeal has been filed by playing fraud on this Court and wasting precious judicial time in unnecessary hearing of this matter. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed.

7.1 Since the appellant has unnecessarily filed the Writ Appeal in spite of the categorical admission that the first respondent herein belongs to workmen category, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant to be paid to the first respondent within a period of thirty days from today for defending the unwanted litigation.

8. The Registry is directed to list this case on 02.03.2026. The appellants are directed to file compliance report on or before

02.03.2026. In case the cost is not paid to the first respondent within thirty days, Registry is directed to list this case for further orders.

Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE css/