BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court, Bhilwara dated 25. 3. 1996.
(2.) THE facts, which are not in dispute and are relevant for the present purposes are that, the petitioner was first appointed as Apprentice in the establishment of respondent No. 2 (M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Limited, Bhilwara) and thereafter on 1. 1. 1967 he was appointed as Mechanic Grade II. On 14. 9. 1991, respondent No. 2 passed an order that as per the record of the Company, the petitioner had served the company for 26 years and for that reason there is decline in the efficiency of the petitioner and, therefore, in terms of Standing Order 14 (d), he is relieved from his services w. e. f. 16. 9. 1991. It was further stated in the order that the petitioner shall be paid emoluments for one month's notice and payment under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for which he has to till-up the requisite forms. The petitioner raised dispute about this order, alleging that it was illegal termination of his services and raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court, Bhilwara vide notification dated 1. 5. 1992. The reference made to the Labour Court, Bhilwara was :- " Whether the termination of the services of workman Shri Prakash Chandra Lodha by the management of M/s. Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Limited, Bhilwara is reasonable and valid and, if not, what relief the workman is entitled ?" Amongst the other contentions regarding unfair labour practice in the case of termination to get rid of the petitioner, who was a trade union leader, it was contended that Certified Standing Order 14 (1) (d) does not accord with Model Standing Order prevailing in the State of Rajasthan under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and, therefore, the Certified Standing Order 14 (1) (d) to the extent it is at variance with Model Standing Order 20, it is invalid and inoperative. The employer contended that the Standing Orders have been duly certified and supersedes the Model Standing order. The Certified Standing Order which binds equally the employer and employee and the workman has been superannuated in accordance with the Certified Standing Order No. 14 (d ). Bereft of other ancillary contentions, the Labour Court found that it cannot be said that the certified Standing Orders are not reasonable and not in accordance with law. The order dated 14. 9. 1991 was held to be in accordance with Standing Order 14 (d) justifying termination of the workman's services.
(3.) AS a result of the aforesaid finding, repelling further contentions of the petitioner-workman that the termination was a result of unfair labour practice, the reference was answered against the workman and his claim was rejected. Hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions in support of his petition. Firstly he challenges the validity of the Standing Order 14 (d) of the Certified Standing Order, being ultra vires Section 3 (2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 read with Modal Standing Order 20 of the Rajasthan Model Standing Orders. In this connection, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Model Standing Orders of Rajasthan provide for determining superannuation age. The superannuation of any incumbent is to be determined with reference to attaining particular age by a workman. The superannuation under Model Standing Order is not related to the length of service. To that extent, the part of Certified Standing Order which provides for superannuation on completion of 25 years of service, if it comes prior to attaining age of 55 years, is ultra vires Model Standing Orders. There being no ground whatsoever on which it can be said that without variance it was not practicable to adhere to Model Standing Order relating to age of superannuation, the Standing Order with such variation could not have been certified validly by the Certifying Officer and such a Standing Order at variance with Model Standing Order is ultra vires. Learned counsel in this connection places reliance on Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. P. D. Vyas & Others (1 ). ;