Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
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 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 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 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 NO. 739 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION 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. 3911 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3916 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3927 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 NO. 3925 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 4003 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 4004 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 4005 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3919 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3918 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3948 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3949 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3946 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3947 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3957 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3956 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3955 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2021|WRIT PETITION NO. 3961 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.S. Pakale, Vijay Vaidya, S.M. Katkar
For the Respondents: P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State, Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State, Smt. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State, Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for the State, Amit Singh, Vivek Patil, Mithun Khaire, Abhay Nevagi & Associates
Unilateral reduction of retirement age by an employer from 60 to 55 years violates Model Standing Orders, constituting illegal termination and warranting compensation instead of reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Challenge to judgment and award of Labour Court regarding illegal termination and age of retirement - The Labour Court found that unilateral reduction of retirement age from 60 to 55 years was illegal and directed compensation, as reinstatement was not feasible due to employees having reached retirement age. (Paras 3, 19, 25)
(B) Illegal Termination - The reduction of the retirement age by employer contradicts Model Standing Orders, leading to findings of illegal termination and compensation orders by Labour Court. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner employer unilaterally reduced the retirement age of employees from 60 to 55 years without proper procedure, resulting in illegal termination claims from affected employees who initially accepted their retiral benefits without protest but later sought reinstatement. (Paras 4-5)
Findings of Court:
Despite arguments of delay and laches by the employer, the Labour Court reaffirmed the illegality of the retirement age reduction and granted compensation. This decision was contested, leading to a review of the appropriateness of references made under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Paras 22-24)
Issues: Whether a dispute becomes stale due to delay in raising claims for reinstatement, and whether the judgment on the retirement age applies universally to similarly situated employees. (Paras 15-16)
Ratio Decidendi: The Labour Court not only considered statutory provisions but also existing judicial precedents regarding retirement age, leading to the conclusion that employers must adhere to established service norms without unilateral modifications. (Para 25)
Result: Writ Petitions allowed and Labour Court's order set aside, remitting the matter for fresh decision. (Paragraph 27)
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. A glance at this chart would reveal the date of retirement of the employees on attaining 55 years of age as per the ‘Nokarnama’. In majority of the cases, the employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer, for the first time after they had completed 60 years of age (retirement age as per Model Standing Orders). Further, these employees approached the Conciliation Ofcer with their grievance belatedly, between the period of 5 to 19 years since the date of their retirement at the age of 55 y
