Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by National Bicycle Corporation of India Ltd. (the employer) challenging an order of the Industrial Court dated 31st August 2004. The Industrial Court had allowed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), holding that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by retiring the first respondent (employee) before he attained the age of superannuation. The employee joined Hind Cycles Limited in 1962 at the Worli factory, stating his age as 23 years. The undertaking was nationalized in 1980 under the Hind Cycles Limited and Sen-Raleigh Limited Nationalization Act, 1980, and the employee's services continued with the petitioner corporation. On 20th May 1987, the employer issued a circular recording the employee's age as 23 at the time of joining. The employer retired the employee on 31st December 1998, when he was 58 years old, claiming the superannuation age was 58. The employee contended that the superannuation age was 60 years. The Industrial Court found that the employer failed to prove the superannuation age and that the employee's service record showed he would attain 60 years in 1999. The court directed the employer to pay salary for the period from 1st January 1999 to 31st December 1999. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court's order, noting that the employer did not produce any standing orders or rules to establish a retirement age of 58, and the circular of 1987 supported the employee's age. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Superannuation - Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer retired an employee at age 58, claiming superannuation age was 58, but the employee contended it was 60. The Industrial Court held that the employer failed to prove the superannuation age and that the employee's service record showed his age as 23 at joining in 1962, making him 60 in 1999. The High Court upheld the finding, noting that the employer's circular of 1987 recorded the employee's age as 23 at joining, and the employer did not produce any standing orders or rules to establish a lower retirement age. Held that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by retiring the employee before the age of superannuation (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retirement of the First Respondent at the age of 58 years amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, when the superannuation age was 60 years.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the employer committed an unfair labour practice and directing payment of salary for the period from 1st January 1999 to 31st December 1999.
Law Points
- Unfair labour practice
- Superannuation age
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Burden of proof on employer
- Age determination from service record
