Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Chaubey, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award wherein the Labour Court directed the employers to grant two years wages and consequential benefits for wrongly retiring the workman at the age of 58 years. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman was working as a Fuesman in the Electricity Board and was retired w.e.f. 30.6.1987. The workman, being aggrieved by his wrongful retirement, raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was "whether the retirement of the workman w.e.f. 30.6.1987 was valid or not ? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to ?"
(3.) The Labour Court after considering the material evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the workman was in the inferior service on the date when he was retired and, that as per the Board's order and Regulations, an employee in the inferior service of the Board would retire at the age of 60 years and accordingly directed the employer to grant two years wages and all consequential benefits that would flow had the workman worked upto the age of 60 years. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.;