The unilateral reduction of retirement age without legal procedure contravenes provisions of Model Standing Orders, mandating equal treatment for all similarly situated employees.

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 belo