M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned award dated 26.3.1987 Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ranjeet Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Asthana learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was in the employment of the petitioner and he was compulsorily retired on 2.11.1974. He had joined service from 23.3.1949 and has been continuously in service since then. Against the order of compulsory retirement, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Agra, which by the impugned award held that the compulsory retirement of the respondent No. 2 was illegal, hence this petition. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the petitioner was served with notice of the proceeding before the Labour Court and in fact, its representation appeared before the Labour Court but no written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner nor was any other step taken in the proceeding except for asking for adjournments on several occasions. It is indeed regrettable that a public sector establishment like the petitioner does not care to do proper pairvi in cases against it. This can only be attributable to the fact that many officers in the public sector undertakings are not really bothered about the interest of their establishments. This is in sharp contrast to the private sector where at least somebody takes interest in such matters. I am constrained to make this observation as this Court has found that in a large number of cases relating to public sector undertakings, nobody takes any interest and often cases are decided ex parte. Since the petitioner chose not to file any written statement before the Labour Court, there was no option with the Labour Court except to proceed with the matter and decide the case ex parte. After the impugned award was given, the petitioner filed an application to set aside that order but that application was rightly rejected by the order dated 13.7.1987 Annexure 6 to the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had been given several opportunities to file written statement but it did not do so. Hence, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the order dated 13.7.1987.
(3.) NOW coming to the merits of the case, it appears that a letter dated 10.4.1972 was issued to the respondent No. 2 regarding some inconsistencies in the stock account of March/April, 1971, but thereafter no enquiry was held against the respondent No. 2 and instead his service was terminated at the age of 55 years. In my opinion this termination of service was clearly illegal since no enquiry was held. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the age of superannuation of the respondent No. 2 was 58 years and not 60 years, and for this, he relied on Rule 2 of the U. P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulations, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on various decisions, e.g., U. P. State Electricity Board v. H. S. Jain, (1978) 4 SCC 16; U. P. State Electricity Board v. Labour Court, Writ Petition No. 17856 of 1995, decided on 3.5.1996 ; J. K. Sharma v. U. P. State Electricity Board. 1993 (67) FLR 595, etc.;