JUDGMENT
A.A. Cazi, J.
1. Two contentions were raised by the petitioner in this writ petition viz. (i) that his service matters are governed by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and (ii) that the letter 25th November, 1987 which purportedly terminates his services is issued by one who does not have the authority to terminate his services. As regards the first contention Mr. Patel stated that the petitioner is not pressing that contention in view of certain decisions already given in other proceedings. Hence now only the second contention requires to be considered.
2. A few facts may be mentioned. The petitioner was born on 5th November, 1927 and according to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, he would reach the age of superannuation on completion of 60 years, that is, he would be superannuated from services, with effect from 5th November, 1987. He was first appointed on 1st April, 1958 by Finally Mills Ltd. as a Clerk in one of their three shops. On 18th October, 1983 the Union of India took over the management of the Cotton Textile Undertaking of Finally Mills Ltd. The Union of India appointed National Textile Corporation Ltd. as Custodian of the Undertaking in question. National Textile Corporation Ltd. in its turn appointment National Textile (S.M.) Ltd. as Additional Custodian of the Undertaking in question. Letter dated 25th November, 1987, copy of which is at page 37 of the writ petition, which was served upon the petitioner states as follows :
“This is to advise you that you have reached the age of superannuation on 5-11-87 having attained the age of 60 years. However, we shall treating the last working day of this month i.e. 30-11-87 as you last working day which would be treated as the final closing date for the settlement of your accounts.
We wish you a happy and peaceful retired life.
Yours faithfully,
for N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd.,
Sd/- (V.A. Inamdar)
Secretary”
3. It is urged by Mr. Patel that it is not “N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd.” that would have the power of terminating the services of the petitioner but it is “N.T.C (S.M.) Ltd.- Additional Custodian” who would have the power to terminate the petitioner’s services. I see no merit in this argument. It is N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd. which has been appointed as the Additional Custodian and it is N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd. that has issued the letter in question. There is nothing in the letter or otherwise to indicate that the said letter was issued by N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd. in any capacity other than in their capacity as Additional Custodian.
4. Mr. Patel then argued that the letter dated 25th November, 1987 was signed by the Secretary whereas it ought to have been signed by the Manager. Mr. Patel drew my attention to Clause 7 of Rule 27 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The said Clause 7 reads as follows:
“An order relating to discharge or termination of service shall be in writing and shall be signed by the Manager. A copy of such order shall be supplied to the workman concerned. In cases of general retrenchment, closing down, strike or lock-out no such orders may be given.”
Now, ordinarily an undertaking has a “Manager” but in this case the management is with custodian who has issued the letter in question. There is therefore no question of any “Manager” issuing such a letter.
5. Finally I may state that there is no question of “terminating” the petitioner’s services. His services have lasted their full life as contemplated in the contract of services and it is according to the contract of service that the period of his service would expire on his reaching the age of superannuation.
6. In the result, I find no merit in this Writ Petition and hence the rule is discharged. No order as to costs.