Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, ... vs Shri Pyara Singh Son Of S. Kishan ... on 3 May, 2007
Author: K Gambhir
Bench: K Gambhir
JUDGMENT
Kailash Gambhir, J.
1. Aggrieved with the award dated 26.2.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-II, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent was working on the post of Senior Operator for Paver Finisher in the technical cadre. Vide order dated 28.04.1995, the said respondent retired from service on 30.04.1995, on attaining the age of 58 years. The respondent/workman had raised dispute under the I.D. Act, feeling aggrieved with the said office order dated 28.4.1995. Pursuant to reference by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi, the matter was adjudicated by the Tribunal to decide the following reference:
Whether termination of services of Shri Pyara Singh by way of retirement vide office order dated 28.4.95 by the management is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.
2. The pleadings were filed by both the parties and evidence was led in support of their respective contentions. Based on the same, the Tribunal gave finding that the respondent/workman was wrongly retired at the age of 58 years and for all purposes the date of retirement of the respondent should have been on his completing 60 years of age. The Tribunal placed reliance on the document exhibited as Ex. WW1/12 which document primarily showed that a case of another similarly situated employee of the respondent Mr. Sansar Chand was considered as per the provisions of FR-56 (b) and thereafter his age of retirement was fixed on his completing 60 years. It would be relevant to reproduce Paras 7 and 8 of the award as under:
7. To appreciate the case, I have gone through the documents Ex. WW1/12, which reads as under:
Additional Commissioner (Engg.) vide his orders dated 10.2.95 has been pleased to allow Shri Sansar Chand, Electrician to draw his salary for the period from 1.6.94 to 13.12.94 during which he was not on duty as he was retired on 31.5.94 A.N. on attaining the age of fifty eight years. He was allowed to join his duty with effect from 14.2.94 as per provision of F.R. 56(b) as he was due to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. The intervening period from 1.6.94 to 13.12.94 is to be treated as spent on duty.
8. It is admitted fact that apart from Ex. WW1/12, the other employee Sh. Habbu Chettri, Senior Operator was retired at the age of 60 years and similarly Ex. WW1/14 shows that the order was passed to retire Sh. Ram Charan Electrician at the age of 60 years. This factual position has been mentioned by the Manager at the time of considering the representation of workman. The stand taken by management that F.R. 56(b) is not applicable, is apparently not accepted as same was made applicable in case of Shri Sansar Chand. So, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established on the material available on the record that case of Piara Singh is on the similar footing as of Sansar Chand, Ram Charan and Habbu Chettri. Consequently, on the ground of parity, workman was entitled to continue in the job till the age of 60 years. Since that period has already completed then for all the purposes, he should have be deemed retire on 30.4.97 along with all consequential benefits. Consequently, it is held that workman Shri Pyara Singh is entitled to be deemed to be in service till 30.4.97 and for all the financial/pensionary benefits. The management is required to be directed to treat the workman to retire at the age of 60 years on 30.4.97 and release all the payments, due to him, by the change of date of retirement from 30.4.95 to 30.4.97. Award is passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, standing counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was correctly retired on his completing the age of retirement of 58 years and in support of his argument he has placed reliance on office order dated 04.03.1997. Counsel for the petitioner states that the nature of job which was performed by the workman was similar to the one as categorized in Annexure-'B' whose retirement age was reduced from 60 years to 58 years under provisions of F.R. 56(a) pursuant to the said office order. In Annexure-'B' of this office order, the age of retirement of Laboratory Assistant/Lift Operator/Store Keeper (Technical) was fixed under the provisions of F.R. 56(a) at the age of 58 years.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent states that there is no perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. He also states that the Tribunal had passed the award after taking into consideration the cases of the similarly situated employees working under the MCD who got superannuated at the age of 60 years and not 58 years. Counsel also contends that even the office order dated 04.03.1997 is taken into consideration although it does not specifically enlist the category of respondent either in Annexure-'A' or in Annexure-'B', still the nature of job being performed by the respondent was akin to various categories of 'C' posts as given in Annexure-'A' whose retirement age under F.R. 56(b) has been fixed as 60 years. I find force in the arguments of counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court why this Court should interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is the final Court of facts unless the award is totally irrational or perverse, this Court will not interfere to upset the finding arrived at by the Tribunal while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When in the case of similarly placed employees the retirement age was fixed at 60 years, then how the case of respondent/workman could have been treated as different from these employees. There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order.
5. Petition is devoid of any merit. Dismissed.
