- (1.)THE petitioner was the head clerk-cum-accountant in the Kendrapara Central Co-operative Bank. That Bank in 1956 was amalgamated with the Cuttack United Central Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "bank"), and the petitioner continued in service under the Cuttack Bank. While working in the Cuttack Bank the petitioner was promoted to the post of Branch Manager of that Bank and was confirmed in the said post with effect from 1-7-64. While working as such, the petitioner, by the order dated 19-10-68, was noticed to retire from service on superannuation with effect from 1-11-68 on completion of 55 years of age as prescribed in the subsidiary rules of the Bank framed in 1956. The petitioner made a representation against the said order on 11-10-68 and he was allowed to continue in service till 31-3-69 and was retired with effect from that date. The petitioner filed O. J. C. No. 868/69 in this Court challenging the said order of retirement, but the said O. J. C. was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, the State Government referred the following question to the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "tribunal"), for adjudication: Whether the superannuation of Sri G. C. Kanungo by the Management of the Cuttack United Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. with effect from 31-5-69 (the correct date is 31-3-69) is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief Shri Kanungo is entitled to?
(2.)THE Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal by his award dated 27-9-74 held that as the petitioner was not discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated from service, the deeming provisions in Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would not come to his rescue to make the question referred, an industrial dispute within the moaning of the Act. and since the said dispute was not an industrial dispute, the reference of the same to the Tribunal was not maintainable and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the said question. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing the said award of the Industrial Tribunal.
(3.)IT is urged by Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the finding of the Tribunal, that the dispute referred to cannot be deemed to be an industrial dispute, is correct. According to Mr. Misra the superannuation of the petitioner by the, management amounts to termination and/or retrenchment of his service and that being so, the dispute or difference between the petitioner and his employer arising out of such superannuation which has been referred to the Tribunal is an industrial dispute as provided Under Section 2a of the Act, and go the Tribunal was clearly within its jurisdiction to decide that question. According to the learned Advocate-General, who appeared for the opposite party, on the question as framed and referred to the Tribunal it was only expected to decide as to whether the superannuation of the petitioner was legal and/or justified, and not whether the said superannuation amounted to termination or retrenchment of service He contends that such a question regarding superannuation as referred to the Tribunal cannot be deemed to be an industrial dispute capable of being raised at the instance of an individual workman under the provisions of Section 2a of the Act, and so the said question could not have been referred to or answered by the Tribunal.