3 As has been pointed out by Mr. Topkar, the learned advocate for the respondents, the record of the proceedings reveal contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner, which conduct is not disputed by it. Admittedly by the Resolution of it's Board dtd.30 th March, 1999, the petitioner had reduced the age of retirement of it's employees from 60 years to 58 years and retired 31 employees in implementation of the Resolution. Some of the employees had filed complaints being Complaints (ULP) No.87 and 100 of 1999 under Item 1 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act contending that in view of the provision under the Model Standing Orders governing their service conditions, they were liable to continue the employees till the age of 60 years. By it's judgment and order dtd. 3rd February, 2000, the Labour Court allowed the complaint holding that reduction by the petitioner in the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years was illegal. The age of retirement of 60 years provided under the Model Standing Orders could not have altered by the petitioner by passing Resolution of it's Board. This order was confirmed by the Industrial Court by dismissing Revision (ULP) No.29 of 2009 by it's order dtd. 19th August, 2006. The petitioner had thereafter approached this court against the order by filing Writ Petition No.8060 of 2006. The writ petition was dismissed by the reasoned order dtd. 21st August, 2007.
