The court considered an application to condone a 99-day delay in filing a review to challenge an order denying retirement age enhancement benefits to workmen who had already retired before the relevant settlement date.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12400 OF 2016
(Shirish Pandharinath Joshi and others Vs.The General Manager and others)
WITH REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO.33290 OF 2015
IN WRIT PETITION NO.7370 OF 2011
Mr.Swapnil S.Patil, Advocate for the applicants.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 23/12/2016
PER COURT :
khs/DEC.2016/12400-d
2
the retirement age of those employees who are in service was to be extended from 55 years to 58 years. The said settlement was to extend its benefits to such workmen from 01/07/2008.
It is agreed that All Daily Rated and Monthly Rated Permanent Workmen, who are on the muster roll of the company on the date of signing the agreement i.e. 14.07.2009 and only after total implementations of this settlement, the normal age of retirement will be raised from 55 years to 58 years.
The workmen who have already retired before 29.06.2009 shall not get any benefit of this provision in any way.”
khs/DEC.2016/12400-d
extended only to those workmen who were on the muster roll of the company on the date of signing of the settlement which is 14/07/2009. It was in the light of these provisions that these applicants were specifically excluded from gaining the benefits of settlement as all of them undisputedly had retired prior to 14/07/2009.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/DEC.2016/12400-d
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the review application is condonable?
Whether the Union-Management settlement extending retirement age to 58 years applies to applicants who had already retired before the date of signing the settlement?
Whether any error is apparent on the face of the impugned order regarding the exclusion of retired workmen from settlement benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lily ThomasReferred¶24
Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, [AIR 2000 SC 1650] · Who else cites this
Shirish Pandharinath Joshi
The General Manager
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
