- (1.) Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Panipar (Distillery Unit) is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the award dated November 26, 1990 given by the Labour Court. A copy of the award is Annexure P/7 with the writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) The petitioner employed the respondent-Sahib Singh on May 6, 1982. His services were terminated on May 1, 1987. The workman raised a dispute. The matter was referred to the Labour Court. The claim of the workman has been upheld by the learned Labour Court. It has been found that the writ petitioner had violated the principles of natural justice in not giving the workman an opportunity to prove his age before terminating his service on the ground that he was over age at the time of initial appointment, that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been complied with as no retrenchment compensation and wages for the notice period were given before terminating the services and that persons junior to the respondent-workman had not only been retained but their services were even regularised.
(3.) Mr. C.B. Goel learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the award only on the ground that the approach of the learned Labour Court is absolutely erroneous. He has produced the school leaving certificate of the respondent- workman as Annexure p/4 with, the writ petition. On the, basis of this certificate it is contended that Sahib Singh having been born on November 8, 1947 was apparently more than 30 years old on May 6, 1982 when he joined service. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very basis of the award of the Labour Court is unfounded. On the other hand Mr. Sudershan Goel learned counsel for the respondent-workman points out that the resolution passed by the petitioner - management on February 25, 1987 was only to operate prospectively and could not be made applicable to the respondent-workman. He further submits that even if the finding regarding age is ignored, the Ablation of sections 25-F and 25-H is clearly established on record. He further submits that no rules regulating the conditions of service of the workman having been framed by the petitioner, the provisions of Model Standing Orders shall apply and since no provision regarding age has been made therein, the basis for the retrenchment of the services of the workman was non-existent.;