IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 38787 of 2010(W)
1. ANDREW GOMES, S/O MICHAEL GOEAZ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD.,
3. THE MANAGER(PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATION)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/01/2011
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.38787 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Charge Hand Welder working under the
respondents. He is aggrieved by the order superannuating the
petitioner with effect from 31.12.2010 on attaining 58 years of
age. According to the petitioner, as per the standing orders
applicable as amended by Ext.P3 order dated 11.5.2010, the age
of retirement has been enhanced to 60 years in the second
respondent’s establishment and therefore, the petitioner is not
liable to be retired at the age of 58 years and the petitioner is
entitled to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age.
2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
second respondent also. The learned Standing Counsel on
instructions submits that although Ext.P3 order has been passed
by the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Cochin directing
amendment of the standing orders enhancing the age of
retirement of the workers of the second respondents as 60 years,
W.P.(C)No.38787/10 2
against Ext.P3 order, the second respondent has filed an
appeal, which is pending. Therefore, by virtue of Section 7 of
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Ext.P3
order of amendment has not yet come into force and
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service
beyond 58 years of age is the contention raised.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On
31.12.2010 this Court has, pending consideration of the writ
petition for admission, ordered status quo till today. Section 7
of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
reads thus:
“7.Date of operation of standing orders.- Standing
orders shall, unless an appeal is preferred under section
6, come into operation on the expiry of thirty days from
the date on which authenticated copies thereof are sent
under sub-section (3) of section 5, or where an appeal
as aforesaid is preferred, on the expiry of seven days
from the date on which copies of the order of the
appellate authority are sent under sub-section (2) of
section 6.”
Admittedly, an appeal has been filed against Ext.P3 order by
the second respondent, which has not yet been disposed of.
Therefore, prima facie until seven days after the copies of the
order of the appellate authority are sent under sub section 2 of
section 6, Ext.P3 order does not take effect. But, I am of
opinion that because of that provision, the petitioner should
W.P.(C)No.38787/10 3
not be allowed to suffer, in the event of the appeal being
unsuccessful. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
The second respondent shall allow the petitioner to
continue in service pending consideration of the appeal stated
to have been filed by the second respondent against Ext.P3
order. But, he shall not be paid salary for the present. If
ultimately the appeal is dismissed, the petitioner shall be paid
salary for the period he worked also and he shall be continued
in service till 60 years of age subject of course to the right of
the second respondent to challenge the appellate order before
the appropriate authorities.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.38787/10 4
W.P.(C)No.38787/10 5