U.P. State Electricity Board vs V.P. Dysel And Ors.

1. This appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. A question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect:

Whether the action of the employers in removing/denying work to their workman Vincent Paul Dysel, son of Shri B. Dysel, Line Inspector from November 2, 1974 is legal and/or invalid? If not, then to what relief/compensation is the concerned workman entitled? And with what further details?.

2. The Labour Court adjudicated the matter. In the claim made by the respondent No. 1 it is stated that he was employed in the establishment of the appellant as a Clerk on March 23, 1949; that he was promoted to the post of Storekeeper on April 1, 1955; that, thereafter, became Line Inspector on February 10, 1960; that respondent No. 1 was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years on November 2, 1974 and that the same amounted to removal from service.

3. Respondent No. 1 contended that he is an inferior servant of the Board and, therefore, is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and his retirement at the age of 55 years is not justified. This statement made by the respondent before the Labour Court remained unrebutted inasmuch as the appellant remained ex parte.

4. On the evidence adduced, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that this retirement of respondent No. 1 at the age of 55 years was not justified and he should be allowed to complete his service till February 10, 1979 and made an award giving all benefits arising thereto. This award was challenged unsuccessfully before the High Court. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a decision of this Court in U. P. State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Hari Shankar Jain and Ors. wherein the question as to the applicability of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 to the appellant and the effect of Section 13B thereto has been, considered. Indeed in that decision the notification issued under Section 13B of the Standing Orders Act was considered which indicated that in case of an ordinary employee the date of retirement would be 55 years but in case of an inferior employee of the Board the age of retirement would be 60 years and it was also open to the Board to compulsorily retire a person after he attained the age of 55 years on three months' notice or three months' salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reason.

6. In the present case the pleadings raised by the respondent clearly indicate that he belongs to the inferior category of servants and that claim has been accepted by the Labour Court in the absence of any pleadings to the contrary or much less evidence. Therefore, on facts the conclusion reached by the Labour Court is justified and calls for no interference as rightly held by the High Court and we also do not interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

C.A. No. 1185/1998:

7. In view of the order passed in C.A. No.1145/1998 this appeal no longer survives and the same shall stand dismissed.