Allahabad High Court
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs S.P. Vajpayee And Anr. on 27 May, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55958 of 2000 Petitioner :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Respondent :- S.P. Vajpayee And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- R.K. Ojha,Sameer Sharma,Vrindavan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Piyush Agarwal,V.K.Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. List revised. None appears for respondent workman.
2. Heard Shri Vrindavan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Present writ petition has been filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. against the award dated 30.06.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur, in Adjudication Case No. 121 of 1999.
4. The above adjudication case had arisen from the following reference made, vide order dated 19.05.1999:
"Kya sewayojakon dwara shramik S P Vajpayee putra swargiya Ram Das Vajpayee, Junior Foreman Tyre ki sewaye 60 varsh sewa nivritti ki tithi ke poorn hone ke poorv 58 varsh ki aayu mai hi dinank 31.08.1975 dwara apranh se relieve kar dinaank 1.9.95 dwara karya se prithak/vanchit kia jaana ucchit evam vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahin toh sambhandhit shramik kya hitlaabh/chatipoorti paane ka adhikari hai? Kis kithi evam anya kis vivaran ke saath?"
5. The Labour Court had returned an award in favour of the respondent workman declaring his age of retirement would have been 60 years. Undisputedly, the respondent workman had worked on the post of junior foreman tyre in the petitioner's establishment. Undisputedly, his original date of superannuation was 31.08.1995.
6. In such facts, it has been submitted, the issue involved is squarely covered by a division bench decision of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Naresh Kumar Srivastava & Ors., 2018 (Suppl) ADJ 600. By the aforesaid decision, the division bench of this Court has held the retirement age at 60 years would be applicable w.e.f. 26.7.2012 i.e. to only such employees, who attained the age of superannuation on or after that date. Clearly, the petitioner is ineligible to extension of the age of retirement, to 60 years.
7. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 30.6.2000 is set aside. However, if any amount has been paid to the respondent workman over and above his entitlement, the same may not be recovered from him, now.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
9. The amount deposited under the interim order dated 4.1.2001 passed by this Court, may be returned to the petitioner together with accrued interest, if any.
Order Date :- 27.5.2022 S.Chaurasia