AMMUNITION FACTORY Vs. BADRINARAYAN R SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Its members consist of workmen employed in the Ammunition Factory and its allied establishments at Khadki. The Co-operative Society was formed with the objective of providing loan facilities to its members. The finance required by the society is raised through Share Capital which is contributed by members of the Society. Persons who are not employed in the Ammunition Factory are not allowed to become members of the Society.

(2.) The 1 st respondent joined the service of the Ammunition Factory as an orderly in 1957 and was promoted through the ranks ultimately as an Upper Division Clerk. On 16/3/1989 the workman was informed that he would be attaining the age of 55 years on 28/7/1989 and that he should submit a certificate of medical fitness should he desire to continue in service. The workman submitted a certificate of medical fitness by a letter dated 3/7/1989. On 31/7/1989 the workman was superannuated from service under Clause 19 of the Staff Service Rules. Clause 19 of the Rules provides as follows:-"An employee may be called to retire from the Society's services at the age of 55 years provided the Managing Committee may extend the period of service of any employee beyond the age limit of 55 years. Managing Committee may further extend the period of service of the employees from year to year until he attains the age of 58 if, in the opinion of the Managing Committee, his services are necessary and he is found medically fit to continue."

(3.) The workman instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The case of the workman in the complaint before the Labour Court was that the employer had unilaterally framed Service Rules, which were approved by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and a misrepresentation was made to the employees that they would be governed by those Rules. The workman stated that in terms of the communication received from the employer, he had submitted a certificate of medical fitness despite which he was not granted an extension in service beyond the age of 55 years under Clause 19 of the Service Rules. The workman contended that several other employees had been granted an extension and that Clause 19 had been observed in its breach. The alternate case of the workman was that under section 38-B of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 were applicable and under the Model Standing Orders, the age of superannuation was 60 years. The workman accordingly sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages from 31/7/1989.