- (1.) This appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. A question was referred to the Industrial Tribunal to the following effect: "Whether the action of the employers in removing/denying work to their workman vincent Paul Dysel, son of Shri B. Dysel, line Inspector from November 2, 1974 is legal and/or invalid If not, then to what relief/compensation is the concerned workman entitled And with what further details -
(2.) The Labour Court adjudicated the matter. In the claim made by the respondent no. 1 it is stated that he was employed in the establishment of the appellant as a Clerk on march 23, 1949; that he was promoted to the post of Storekeeper on April 1, 1955; that, thereafter, became Line Inspector on February 10, 1960; that respondent No. 1 was compulsorily retired from service on attaining the age of 55 years on November 2, 1974 and that the same amounted to removal from service.
(3.) Respondent No. 1 contended that he is an inferior servant of the Board and, therefore, is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and his retirement at the age of 55 years is not justified. This statement made by the respondent before the Labour Court remained un-rebutted inasmuch as the appellant remained ex parte.;