Amar Singh vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. Unit Vikram ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3990 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Amar Singh vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. Unit Vikram ... on 4 February, 2025

Author: Subodh Abhyankar

Bench: Subodh Abhyankar

                          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2764

                                                                         1
                                                                                                           W.P. No.40189-2024
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT INDORE
                                                           BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
                                                ON THE 4th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 40189 of 2024
                                                        AMAR SINGH
                                                            Versus
                                      ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. UNIT VIKRAM CEMENT WORKS
                                                THROUGH FACTORY MANAGER

                                 Appearance:
                                      Shri Jagdish Baheti - Advocate for the petitioner with Shri
                                 Prabuddha Singh- Advocate for the petitioner.
                                      Shri Girish Patwardhan - Senior Advocate with Shri Prateek
                                 Patwardhan- Advocate for the respondent.

                                                                          ORDER

Heard.

2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Pass an appropriate Writ, order or direction for quashing the letter dated 01.10.2024 issued by the Respondent, whereby, the Petitioner has been informed that the Petitioner will stand retired on 31.12.2024 and further the Petitioner be permitted to work in the said establishment till the Petitioner attains the age of 60 years.

ii) The Petition may kindly be allowed with costs.

iii) Any other relief(s), order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be awarded to the Petitioner."

3] Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.235/2025 (Vikram Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Others) dated 30.01.2025, wherein, in an identical matter, this Court has directed that the workmen of the respondent is entitled to

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2764

W.P. No.40189-2024 continue up to the age of 60 years, and that continuation shall be subject to any order passed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order only. 4] The prayer is opposed by Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondent Company, who has submitted that the present case is distinguishable, as in the case of Vikram Singh Chauhan (Supra), the petitioner was already in service, whereas, in the present case, the petitioner has been made to retire after completing the age of 58 years, which according to the respondent, was the age of superannuation, and has not continued in service.

5] On due consideration of submissions, and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh Chauhan (Supra), this Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2025, which reads as under:-

"xxxxxxx Learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide letter dated 01.11.2024 the respondent no.4 is retiring the writ petitioner after attaining the age of 58 years whereas in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.1167/2019 (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. vs. Additional Labour Commissioner & others), he is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. He further submits that the writ Court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition by relegating the petitioner to approach the Industrial Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act when the Industrial Court had already decided this dispute in respect of retirement age.

Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 opposes the aforesaid prayer by submitting that the writ court has rightly taken the view in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of U.P State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and others vs. U.P Rajya Setu Nigam S.Karamchari Sangh - AIR 2005 SC 4067.

In reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on para-18 & 27 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and others - (2003) 10 SCC 733 which are reproduced below:

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2764

W.P. No.40189-2024

18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Govt); (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; ( v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

27. Such private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private companies. For example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment say Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance of those provisions.

For instance, if a private employer dispense with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court interfered and have issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to.

Apart from the aforesaid judgment, in this case a reference was made by the State Govt. on a request made by workmen through Union challenging the action of the respondent no.4 retiring at the age of 58 years. The State Govt. sent the reference to the Industrial Court which was challenged by the respondent no.4 by way of writ petition before this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Industrial Court passed an award dated 26.04.2022 answering the reference in favour of the workmen that they are entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. The respondent No.4 challenged the said reference by way of miscellaneous petition before this Court. All the writ petitions were decided by a common order dated 24.09.2024 in favour of the workmen that they are entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner in this petition has already been put to rest by the Industrial Court, hence every workman cannot be expected to approach the Court to get an answer to reference. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act makes the award final between the workman and employer. Therefore,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2764

W.P. No.40189-2024 the award passed by the Industrial Court which has been affirmed by this Court is binding on the respondent no.4.

Shri Patwardhan, learned senior counsel submits that the order passed by this court has been challenged by the respondent no.4 before the Apex Court vide SLP (C) No.24813-24833/2024 and vide order dated 25.10.2024 the Apex Court has only issued notice in the SLP but the order passed by this Court has not been stayed. Therefore, till the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in the bunch of writ petitions is stayed/set aside by the Apex Court, the same is binding on the respondent no.4. Hence, the appellant is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years and that continuation shall be subject to any order passed by the Apex Court.

C.c as per rules."

6] Apparently, the dispute in the said case was also that the respondents were retiring the workman after attaining the age of 58 years, and this Court had already held in W.A. No.1167/2019 (Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and Others) that he (workmen) is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years.

7] In view of the same, the present petition is also allowed in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh Chauhan (Supra) and the benefits as have accrued to the petitioner shall also be extended to him, as in the case of Vikram Singh Chauhan (Supra) within a further period of two weeks' time. 8] With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE

Bahar