JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 10th January, 2003 whereby the Labour Court answered the reference against her.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was initially working with Philips India Ltd. as stenographer. The firm, where the petitioner was working, was taken over by ESAB India Ltd. and the petitioner was absorbed as employee of ESAB Ltd. with assurance that her services would continue without break and her wages, terms and conditions and all her employment would stand protected. Her age of retirement, as per her appointment letter dated 16.1.1979 with Philips India, was 60 years.
3. After her absorption by ESAB India, she continued working with ESAB India and she was promoted from clerical cadre to management cadre, G-I. She became Confidential Secretary and her job included Secretarial job of RM Office, maintaining the correspondence related to accounts and business, controlling of mail receipt, dispatch and maintenance of leave record and medical account of the management staff. While promoting her in the management carde, she was given fresh appointment and terms and conditions of service which she accepted along with accepting the promotion. The terms and conditions of her promotion in the management cadre, regarding her superannuation provided as under:
4. The age of superannuation from the Company’s service normally is 60 years provided, however, the Company shall have absolute discretion to retire you at any time without assigning any reason after you attain the age of 58 years and for the purpose of determining this, the age recorded with the Company at the time of appointment shall be considered as final and conclusive.
4. The petitioner was retired on completion of her age of 58 years by the respondent. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute about retiring her at the age of 58 years instead of 58 years, which was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:
Whether the services of Mrs. Saroj Arora have been terminated by way of retirement illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
5. The Labour Court, after holding that the petitioner was a workman, came to conclusion that she was retired from service in accordance with terms and conditions of her appointment of her promotion in the management cadre. The clause 4 of the promotion letter categorically provided that it was the discretion of the management to retire her at the age of 58 years. There was no illegality in retiring her at the age of 58 years.
6. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court on the ground that her initial terms and conditions provided that she could be retired only at the age of 60 years and the new terms and conditions could not be imposed on her in the garb of promotion.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is undisputed fact that the age of retirement of the petitioner, so long as she was stenographer, was governed by her service conditions in Phillips India if she had continued as stenographer and she would have retired at the age of 60 years. She was promoted to the management cadre and while promoting her to the management cadre, the management had given her additional benefits and perks of the management cadre and it was made known to her that while she will be eligible for salary and perks of the management cadre, the conditions of services of management cadre G-I and medical arrangement of management staff is to be applicable to her. Under these conditions, it was provided that her age of retirement shall be in terms of Clause 4, reproduced above. The management could retire her at the age of 58 years, without assigning any reason. Though she could be retired at the age of 60 years, but it was the absolute discretion of the management. It is also a fact that the petitioner herself had written a letter to the management that due to her health, age and family responsibilities, she be given V.S.S. with full benefits up to the age of 60 years. The management, instead of accepting her request of giving her V.S.S. retired her at the age of 58 years in terms of her service conditions.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1991 LAB. I.C. 1372 S.P. Dubey v. M.P..S.R.T. Corporation and Anr. 1983 (2) SLR 274 S.E. aBalagi v. the Karnataka University Dharwad and Ors. DCLR 2003(II) Delhi-10 Suraj Bhan Chauhan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and 2006 VII AD(Delhi) 726 Orient Craft(P) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors. I find that none of these judgments help the petitioner. The facts in the above cases are altogether different from the facts of the petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner had herself stated that her health was not that good and she wanted V.S.S. The respondent had an option to retire her at the age of 58 years in terms of service conditions. The petitioner had not objected to these service conditions, at any point of time, after her promotion. she had taken benefits of promotion and other perks attached with the management cadre. She could not say that she had a right over the benefits but was not subjected to other service conditions. Her earlier appointment letter was in clerical cadre wherein she was not entitled to these benefits which were granted to her under the management cadre. Once she joined management cadre, she was at par with other management cadre. She could not claim any better rights than other management cadre and since the of age of retirement for all those who were in management cadre was the same, as stated in Para 3 above, she could be retired at the age of 58 years by the management. She cannot make a complaint that she was wrongly retired. No malafide have been alleged against the respondent.
10. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no perversity in the award. The writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.