DESIKACHARI (P.S) AND ORS. Vs. THE "MALL" [BY THE PROPRIETORS OF ASSOCIATED PUBLISHERS, (PRIVATE), LTD.] AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to W.J. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1959 on the file of the labour court, Madras, and for quashing the orders passed thereon on 8 July 1960, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for certain monetary compensation.

(2.) THE respondent is a private limited company, which owns and publishes the "Mail," one of the premier English daily newspapers of Madras. P.S. Desikachari, C. Theobald and A. Krishnamurthi, the petitioners in the above petitions, were employed by the respondent as the chief reporter, sports editor and reporter, respectively, for the paper. Each one of them had put in more than 35 years of continuous service in the establishment; by the year 1956, they had attained respectively 62, 68 and 58 years of age. The relationship between the management and the petitioners during the entire period of service was happy; the management treated the employees with kindness and consideration, and the latter, on their part, responded by doing substantial work to forward the interests of the paper. There was no special conditions of service regulating the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. Their service would, however, be terminated by notice on either side. To be more specific, the contract of employment did not provide for retirement of the employee on reaching any particular age; nor were there any standing orders providing for superannuation of the employees. There is, however, nothing unusual or strange in this as the employer could always discharge the employee by giving the necessary notice.

(3.) AT about that time, the management of the "Mail" appears to have considered the expediency of continuing in service the petitioners. The willingness of the latter to retire was not ascertained, presumably because their consent was not necessary for the termination of their service. The management decided to retire them from 1 June 1959 on payment of "the usual statutory compensation," Mr. Taylor, the editor, communicated the decision to the three petitioners in due course; it is not disputed that the latter were then told that they would be paid all statutory benefits due to them. Indeed, in the letters individually addressed to the three petitioners, by the management on 22 March 1956 Specifically stated that the former would; be paid "retrenchment compensation." The obald was willing for the termination of his services on those terms. But the other two placed before the management their special difficulties in the event of their immediate discharge, and pleaded for a reconsideration of the decision. The management was, however, not agreeable to reconsider their decision to retire them, but was wiling to mitigate the rigour of its order by making it effective from 1 October 1958. It will be useful in this connexion to set out verbatim two letters written on behalf of the management to Krishnamurthi, which can be taken as disclosing the circumstances under which he and Deaikachari were discharged. The first of them is dated 22 March 1956, and runs: