1
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2005
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2797 OF 2001
Shri Vithal Bakula Kokate
Municipal Colony Building No.16,
Room No. 9, Rawali Camp,
Sion-Koliwada, Mumbai - 400 022 ..Appellant
(Org.Petitioner)
Vs.
1. M/s. Podar Mills Unit of
National Textile Corporation Ltd.
N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai 400 011.
2. Shri A.A. Lad
Hon'ble Iind Labour Court,
Government Administrative Bldg.,
Bandra, Mumbai.
3. Shri R.U. Ingule
Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court,
Govt. Administrative Bldg.,
Bandra, Mumbai. ..Respondents
Mr. S.N. Deshpande a/w Mrs. S.P. Munshi for appellant.
Mrs. Meena Doshi for respondent no.1.
CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE &
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
February 24, 2010.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
2
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per B.H. Marlapalle,J.)
1. This intra court appeal arises from the Judgment and Order
dated 9/2/2005 rendered by the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing
Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2001. The findings recorded by the Labour Court
and the Industrial Court holding that the petitioner is not an employee
within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations
Act, 1946 (the BIR Act for short) have been confirmed by the learned
Single Judge.
2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Learner by the
erstwhile Podar Mills sometimes in the year 1966. He was promoted to the
post of Investigator in the year 1970 and was fitted on the basic salary of
Rs.205/- per month. He was subsequently promoted to the post of
Departmental Assistant, Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and lastly to the
post of Super Senior Assistant Master with effect from 15/7/1997 and was
fitted in the pay-scale of Rs.1305-50-1605 EB-50-1905. On 16/2/1998 M/s.
Podar Mills which by then had become a unit of National Textile
Corporation Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking) informed the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
3
appellant that he would be attaining the age of 60 years on 14/3/1998 and,
therefore, he would stand retired on 15/3/1998 under Model Standing
Orders No. 26-A as applicable to him. The appellant, therefore,
approached this court in Writ Petition No. 483 of 1998. The employer
opposed the petition by filing a reply and considering the same, the learned
counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition so as to
approach the Industrial Court by raising a dispute under the BIR Act. This
court by its order dated 17/3/1998 granted leave to withdraw the petition
with liberty and all contentions of the parties were left open. The employer
had stated before this court that the appellant was not governed by the BIR
Act. Obviously, this claim was also left to be decided by the appropriate
forum. After the petition was disposed as withdrawn, the appellant issued
an approach notice under Section 42 of the BIR Act to the employer and
prayed for reinstatement with full back-wages. As there was no response
from the employer, the appellant filed Application (BIR) No. 84 of 1998
under Section 42 read with Sections 78 and 79 of the BIR Act. In the said
application, he prayed for the letter dated 16/2/1998 be quashed and set
aside, directions to reinstate him in service with full back-wages and other
consequential benefits till the date of retirement, directions to continue the
appellant in service till he remained physically and mentally fit, directions
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
4
to continue him in service till 63 years of his age if he continues to be
efficient. The employer filed Written Statement and raised preliminary
issues that the appellant was not an employee within the meaning of
Section 3(13) of the BIR Act and, therefore, the application was not
maintainable. The application was also opposed by the employer on merits
pointing out that the applicant was not an operative as defined under the
BIR Act and, therefore, could not claim the benefit of Standing Order No.
20A of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the operatives. It was
also alleged by the employer that even otherwise the applicant was not fit
to be retained in service beyond the age of 60 years on account of his ill-
health.
3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court by his judgment and
order dated 1/2/2000 held that the applicant was not an employee and the
employer was not estopped from raising the issue of his status. The Labour
Court also proceeded to decide the application on merits and recorded that
the applicant was not fit to be retained in service beyond the age of 60
years. The appellant, therefore, approached the Industrial Court in Appeal
(IC) No. 14 of 2000, which came to be dismissed on 10/9/2001. These
orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
5
challenged in Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2001, which came to be dismissed
as noted herebinabove.
4. Before the Labour Court the appellant had prayed for the
following reliefs:-
(A) It be held and declared that the Retirement Order dated
16/2/1998 issued to applicant by the Opponent under Standing
Order 26-A wall illegal and improper.
(B) The Retirement memo issued to Applicant dated 16/2/1998 be quashed and set aside. (C) Opponents be directed to re-instate the Applicant withfull back-wages and other benefits and continuity of service
with effect from the date of retirement/termination i.e.
15/3/1998.
(D) Opponent be directed to continue the Applicant in
service till he remains physically and mentally fit.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
6(E) Opponents be directed to continue the Applicant in
service till 63 years of his age if continues to be efficient.
However, in Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2001, the substantial
relief prayed for read as under:-
“The Hon’ble Court be pleased to exercise the powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue the Writ of
Certitorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions by
calling for record of cases namely Application (BIR) No. 84 of
1998 and Appeal (ID) No. 14 of 2000 and after looking into
propriety and legality of the impugned orders to quash and set
aside the impugned orders dated 1/2/2000 and 10/9/2001
respectively and grant the reliefs as prayed in Application
(BIR) No. 84 of 1998 and Respondent No.1 be directed to pay
3 years back-wages to the petitioner with interest.” (Emphasis
supplied)
The underlined portion of the prayer made in the Writ Petition
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
7goes to show that the appellant sought directions to continue in service till
the age of 63 years under Standing Order No. 20-A as applicable to the
operatives and settled under the BIR Act. However, during his oral
arguments advanced before us, Mr. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that as the appellant was held to be not an employee
under the BIR Act, the Standing Orders were not applicable to him
(whether Settled or Model Standing Orders) and, therefore, he could not
have been retired till he was medically and mentally fit and there could not
be any age of retirement for the appellant. Mr. Deshpande, therefore,
submitted that the impugned letter dated 16/2/1998 was required to be
quashed and set aside and the appellant was required to be paid back-wages
for the entire period. In support of these contentions, he has relied upon
the following decisions of this court:
(i) Mst. Dewli Bakaram and ors. vs. State Industrial Court
and others [1959 I L.L.J. 475].
(ii) Universal Transport Co., Mumbai vs. Siraj Kadarbhai
China and anr. [2005 III CLR 912].
He also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
8Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Rehman vs. National Textile
Corporation Ltd. [1989 (58) F.L.R. 462] and more particularly the
following observations made therein:-
“In the absence of any provision in the contract or conditions
of service, we are clearly of the opinion that so long as
artisans, or skilled and highly skilled workmen or labourers
who, during their tenure, have acquired the expertise in various
trades, are physically and mentally fit and capable of working
on the machines or in their trades, they have to continue in
services.”
5. In the case of Universal Transport Company (Supra), the
learned Single Judge of this Court held that if the workman was not
covered under the Standing Orders, where the establishment had less than
50 workmen, there cannot be any obstacle to the workman continuing in
service till he is either physically or mentally fit. Based on these
observations, it was submitted by Mr. Deshpande that if the appellant is not
an employee as defined under the BIR Act, he would not be covered either
under the settled Standing Orders applicable to the operatives or the Model
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
9Standing Orders applicable to the Technical and Supervisory staff which
prescribe the age of retirement and, therefore, the appellant ought to be
allowed to continue in service till he is physically and mentally fit. By
referring to the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge,
Mr. Deshpande submitted that the findings recorded therein, by referring to
the earlier two decisions in the case of S.A. Sarang vs. W.G. Forge and
Allied Industries Ltd. [1995 I CLR 837] and Cricket Club of India vs.
Baljit Shyam [1998 I CLR 570], are erroneous.
6. It is clear from the record that in support of his application the
applicant examined himself and the employer had examined Mr.
Shashikant Vasant Tirodkar who was holding post of Administrative
Officer with the Podar Mills from 1990. In the Written Statement
submitted by the Company, it was pointed out that the appellant was In-
charge of a section in his capacity as Super Senior Assistant when the
impugned letter dated 16/2/1998 was served on him and there were about
346 employees under him in the said section. His basic salary was in
excess of Rs.1000/- per month and he was discharging mainly the duties of
a Manager/Supervisor. Mr. Tirodkar in his examination-in-chief stated
before the Labour Court that the appellant was a Senior Assistant in the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
10
Spinning Department and on his promotion he became In-charge of the
said department with about 450 workers under him. It was further pointed
out that under the appellant, there was a Senior Assistant, Junior Assistant
and their under other supervisory staff in the post of Department Assistant,
Foreman and Assistant Foreman working under him, in addition to about
5-7 Clerks and other operative class employees. It was also stated in his
oral depositions that the appellant was the punishing authority in respect of
the employees working under him. The appellant who was present before
the Labour Court, declined to cross-examine this witness as is clear from
the record. In his oral depositions, the appellant did not bring out any
material to defeat the contentions of the management that he was not an
employee as defined under the BIR Act. On the contrary, he admitted that
he joined as a worker on 21/11/1965 and retired on 15/3/1998 as a Super
Senior Assistant. He also admitted that he was promoted to the post of
Departmental Assistant from the post of Apprentise and thereafter was
promoted as Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant and thereafter as Super
Senior Assistant. However, he went on to state that while he was working
in the post of Super Senior Assistant, the said post was called as operative
and, therefore, he was entitled to be continued till the age of 63 years, as
was given to other employees. The evidence so placed before the Labour
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
11
Court clearly supported the case of the Management and more particularly
the cross-examination of the appellant himself that he was working in
Supervisory/Managerial category. Consequently, the findings recorded by
the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court in this regard have
been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any error
in these concurrent findings regarding the status of the appellant, as not
being an employee within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the BIR Act
and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Labour Court on Issue No.1
deserve to be confirmed.
7. So far as the findings on Issue No.2 recorded by the Labour
Court are concerned, the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
on 17/3/1998 and as referred to hereinabove clearly left all the contentions
open while recording the contentions of the employer that the appellant
was not governed by the BIR Act. The Labour Court, therefore, rightly held
that there was no estoppel which would operate against the Management so
as to challenge his status as an employee as defined under the BIR Act.
Hence, the findings on Issue No.2 as recorded by the Labour Court and
confirmed by the Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge are
required to be upheld. Having recorded the findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
12
against the appellant, it was not required for the Labour Court to consider
the appellant’s claim on merits and proceed to decide whether he was
otherwise physically fit for being continued till the age of 63 years.
8. Mr. Deshpande submitted that if the appellant is not covered
under any of the Standing Orders, as he was not an employee as defined
under Section 3(13) of the BIR Act, the impugned letter dated 16/2/1998
invoking the powers under Standing Order No.26-A of the Model Standing
Orders applicable to the Technical and Supervisory staff could not have
been issued and the same was required to be quashed and set aside by the
learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution and the
appellant ought to have been reinstated with full back-wages and
consequential benefits. It was further submitted by Mr. Deshpande that the
appellant ought to be continued in service till he is physically and mentally
fit, even as of now. These arguments of Mr.Deshpande imply that the
employees working under the respondent-Mills in the categories other than
the covered by the Standing Orders are required to be continued till they
are physically and mentally fit and there could not be any age of
superannuation. Even the judgments relied upon by Mr. Deshpande do not
imply these conclusions. In all the judgments relied upon by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
13
Mr.Deshpande and as noted hereinabove, the cases of workman as defined
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the employee as defined under
the BIR Act were under consideration. Section 35 of the BIR Act provides
for settlement of Standing Orders in respect of industrial matters
mentioned in Schedule – I thereto and in Schedule – I there are 14 matters
listed and at Sr.No.13 the age of retirement or superannuation finds its
place. Thus there is a statutory mandate that the age of retirement or
superannuation is required to be prescribed under the Standing Orders and
in any establishment if the Standing Orders are not applicable, the age of
retirement or superannuation may be prescribed by way of settlements or
the employment contracts. This, however, does not mean that an officer or
a supervisor or a manager working in a Textile Mills does not have an age
of retirement or superannuation and he is required to be continued till he is
physically and mentally fit. The submissions of Mr.Deshpande are,
therefore, far-fetched and without any legal support.
9. Once the appellant was held to be out of the purview of the
BIR Act, his remedy to challenge the notice dated 16/2/1998 was either
before the Civil Court in a suit for declaration or by approaching this Court
in a fresh Writ Petition. The Labour Court or the Industrial Court could not
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
14
have considered the challenge to the said notice once it was held that the
appellant could not be governed by BIR Act. The appellant has not chosen
to challenge the said notice either before a Civil Court by filing a suit or
before this court by filing a Writ Petition and such a relief to quash and set
aside that notice on the grounds advanced by Mr. Deshpande cannot be
considered in an intra court appeal.
10. In the premises, this appeal must fail and the same is hereby
dismissed.
(SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:38:49 :::
