WELCOMGROUP SEAROCK LANDS END Vs. TRYAMBAK KARBHARI WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE issues involved in both these petitions are, one relating to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices. Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") to deal with the matter pertaining to the subject of interpretation of the Model or Certified Standing Orders while dealing with a com-plaint under the said Act and the second, being the interpretation of Clause 27 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the parties to the petition.

(3.) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2000 and the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2000 were employed as the painter and the gardener respectively in the services of M/s. Welcomgroup Searock, who are the respondents in the first petition and the petitioners in the second, and hereinafter called as "the employer". As on attaining the age of 55 years by the said employees they were sought to be retired, and their request for extension of retirement on the basis of the Clause 27 of the Certified Standing Orders was not accepted by the employer, the complaints were filed under the said Act alleging unfair labour practices having been adopted by the employer under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. When the matters came up for hearing, in the complaint by Shri tryambak Karbhari Wagh, who is the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2000, on an objection being raised by the employer regarding the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain the complaint under the said act on the ground that the matter involves interpretation of the clauses of the certified Standing Orders and in terms of section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as "the SO Act"), the jurisdiction to decide the same vests in the Labour Court under the said Act and the same has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the SO act, the Industrial Court refused to grant any interim relief. Being aggrieved, the Writ Petition No. 2317 of 1999 was preferred by Tryambak Karbhari Wagh, which came to be withdrawn on 21-9-1999 while obtaining a specific direction to the Industrial Court to hear and decide the complaint expeditiously and preferably by the end of March, 2000. The employer did not raise similar objection regarding lack of jurisdiction in case of complaint by Shri Appu shetty Koraga, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2000. After hearing the parties, the complaint filed by Tryambak was allowed by the Industrial court by judgment and order dated 30-3-2000, holding that the employer was engaged in the commission of the unfair labour practices under Item 9 of schedule IV of the said Act and it was directed to pay full wages along with the other benefits of the post which the said Tryambak was holding for the period from 1-1-1999 to 31-12-1999. In case of complaint by Appu, after hearing the parties, the same was dismissed by judgment and order dated 21-6-2000. While in the case of Tryambak the Industrial Court held that the clause 27 of the Certified Standing Orders makes it obligatory for the employer to extend the age of retirement of its employee by three years after the age of 55 years, while in the case of Appu the Industrial Court held it to be entirely at the discretion of the employer. Aggrieved by the order allowing the complaint of Tryambak, the employer has filed the Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2000, while aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, Appu has preferred the Writ Petition No. 1903 of 2000.