Dismissed

Shri Devdasan Devamani. v. Jam Manufacturing Mills (U.C.) and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Aug 2005WP/69/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to his compulsory retirement at age 60. It clarified that as the employee was covered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, the Model Standing Order retirement norm was applicable. The writ petition was dismissed as frivolous, retaining the retirement order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the retirement order was upheld; parties to bear own costs.

Shri Devdasan Devamani. Vs Jam Manufacturing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.69 OF 1993

¶4

Shri Devdasan Devamoni, c/o. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Mazdoor Manzil, Parel, Bombay-400 012. Petitioner vs. 1. Jam Manufacturing Mills (UC) A Unit of NTC (5M) Ltd. (AC), Lal Baug, Parel, Bombay-400 012. 2. National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) of India, Appollo House, Bombay-400 013. Respondents Mr.S.N.Deshpande for the petitioner. Mr.Shailesh More i/b.Mr.S.M.Naik for the respondents.

¶5

CORAM : R. M. LODHA &

¶6

J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ .

¶7

DATED : 11th August 2005

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Lodha,J.)

¶9

Heard.

¶10

2.	By	the	communication	dat	ed 14th	Decemb	er 1992,		the
petitioner	was	info	rmed that	on	his	attaining	the	age	of
60	years	on	15th Janua	ry	1993, he	would	stand		retired
from	service		with effect	from	16th	January	1993.		The
petitioner		has	invoked	ex	traordinary	j	urisdiction		of
this Court	under Arti	cle 226	of the Constitution	of
India in ch	allenging the	said or	der.

¶11

The only contention of the learned counsel for the

¶12

¶13

petitioner is that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding Technical and Supervisory post having basic salary exceeding Rs.1000/per month and, therefore, was not an employee within the meaning of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Fort short, ‘BIR Act’) and Model Standing Order 26-A was not applicable to the employees not covered under the BIR Act. The learned counsel would thus submit that by superannuating the petitioner

¶14

on his attaining the age of 60 years relying upon clause

¶15

26-A of Model Standing Orders is bad in law.

¶16

The communication dated 14th December 1992 reads

¶17

thus:

¶18

"JAM MANUFACTURING MILLS (U.C.) T.C.(S.M.) LTD.(A.C.) Lalbaug, Parel, Bombay-400012. Ref.No.JM/Record/92/2027

¶19

Date: 14-12-92

¶20

Shri Devdasan Devamani, Super Senior Assistant, Department Weaving.

¶21

Dear Sir,

¶22

Sub: Order of Retirement from service. . As per our record, we find that you will be reaching the age of superannuation (60 years) on 15-1-1993. . . You are hereby informed that you shall stand compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 16-1-1993, on attaining the age of 60 years as provided in Clause 26(A) of Model Standing Orders applicable to employees other than Operatives. . The last working day would be Friday the

¶23

¶24

15th January 1993 which would be treated as the final closing date.

¶25

. We wish you a happy and peaceful retired life.

¶26

	. Thankin	g you,	For J	am Ma	Yours faithfully, nufacturing Mills (U.C.) Sd/- General Manager."
5.	That	th	e petitio	ner	was well aware that	he	would
retire	on	his	attaining	the	age of 60 years	is	clearly
reflected	from		the r	epresen	tation made by	him	on
01.10.1992		to	the	first	respondent. The	repre	sentation
dated	01.1	0.1992	was	made	by the petitioner	much	before

¶27

the impugned communication dated 14.12.1992 was received

¶28

by him. In his representation he stated thus-

¶29

	" I, the undersigned, am working	in	your
	esteemed organisation for the past 14		years
	and going to retire on 31st January	,	1993,
	having completed 60 years of age. ... I plead with you sir, to extend my service further for 3 years."	..	and
6.	It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2	that	the
Model	Standing Orders framed for employees othe	r	than
the	Operatives and clerks were uniformally acc	epted	and
acted	upon as forming part of conditions of serv	ice	of
Technical	and supervisory staff and, accordingly,		the
retirement	age for Technical and supervisory staff		was
60	years and the petitioner was fully aware	of	this
condition	of retirement. Though this stand set	up	by
the	respondents 1 and 2 in the reply affidavit	has	been
controverte	d by the petitioner in the affi	davit	in

¶30

¶31

rejoinder,	but	as	we	hav	e alr	eady indicated	above	that
the	petitioner	was	full	y	aware	that the	retirement	age
for	Technical	and	supe	rvisory	staf	f was 60	years	and it
was	for	this	reason	tha	t in	his rep	resentation	dated
01.10.1992	mad	e	to	the	first	respondent	he	intimated
that	on his	a	ttaining	the	age	of 60 yea	rs he	would
retire	on	31.01.1	992	but	he	prayed for	extensio	n of
time.	In		these	circu	mstances,	we find	no	justifiable
reason	to disbe	lieve	the	stan	d se	t up by	the	respondents
1	and 2	in	their	reply	affid	avit that	Model	Standing
Orders	framed		for	emplo	yees	other than	the	Operatives
and	clerks	were	accepte	d	and	acted upon	as formi	ng part

¶32

of the conditions of the service of Technical and

¶33

supervisory staff.

¶34

7.	In	the sur-rejoinder filed by the respondents 1	and
2 it	has	been stated that the age of retirement	for
Technical	and	supervisory staff and officers employed	in
the	constitue	nt units of the National	Textile
Corporation		(South Maharashtra) Limited not covered	by
the p	rovisions	of the BIR Act/Standing Orders/Agr	eements
etc.	is	58 years and the age of retirement of	the
employees	which	were covered under the provisions of	the
BIR	Act/Stand	ing Orders/Agreements was 60 years.	In
this	regard	reference has been made to the re	solution
dated	4th	September 1976. If we accept the argumen	t of
the	learned	counsel for the petitioner that	the
petitioner		though belonged to Technical and sup	ervisory

¶35

¶36

staff	but	was n	ot an	employee	within	the	me	aning of	the
BIR	Act,	the	petitione	r ought	to have	retire	d	on	his
attaining	the	age	of	58 years.	As	a m	atter	of	fact
since	the	petitioner	was	covered	under	the		provisions	of
BIR	Act, he	got	the	benefit of	the	Model		Standing	Orders
applicable		to	the	employees	other	than	the	Op	eratives

¶37

and clerks and returned on his attaining the age of 60

¶38

years.

¶39

frivolous, misconceived and devoid of any substance and merit.

¶40

9. Before	we	close, we may ref	er to	the	judgme	nt	of the
Supreme	Court	in the case of	Delhi	Cloth	and		General
Mills Ltd.		v. Shambhu Nath	Mukh	erjee,	1984		LABOUR
INDUSTRIAL	CASES	1743 relied upo	n by	the	learn	ed	counsel
for the	petiti	oner. In paragraph	10	of	the	re	port, the
Supreme C	ourt	observed that	having	r	egard		to the
circumstances	of	the case it was	not	nec	essary	to	decide
the co	ntention	whether there was	an	y ru	le of		retirement
applicable	to	the deceased workman.		The	Supreme		Court
further o	bserved	that the finding	of	the	Labour		Court
was confined	to	the facts obtaining	in	that	case		and not
as a	precedent	that as far as	the d	eceased	workm	an	was
concerned	there	was no rule un	der w	hich	he cou	ld	have
retired or	s	uperannuated at the ag	e of	58	years	.	In

¶41

¶42

what the Supreme Court had observed in paragraph 10, it is clear that the judgment was confined to the facts of its own case. Even otherwise we find no relevance of this judgment to the facts of the present case. 10. Writ petition is dismissed. We would have ordinarily imposed cost on the petitioner for filing

¶43

such frivolous writ petition, but since he retired long back, we order the parties to bear their own costs.

¶44

(R.M. LODHA,J.)

¶45

(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)

Shri Devdasan Devamani. v. Jam Manufacturing Mills (U.C.) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Devdasan Devamani. v. Jam Manufacturing Mills (U.C.) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alok Ajit Pal., Vs Suparna Tapan Das.

Dr.Mrs.Sabita Mohindru Ram. Vs Commander Prabhat Kumar Ram.

M/S.Fleming Shaw and Co.Pvtltd. Vs Commercial Union Assu.Co.and Ors.

Dr.v.W.Deshpande and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Park Remedies. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hemantkumar Ganpat Tandeland 23 Os. Vs Union of India and Ors.