Kerala High Court
Payyanur Educational Society vs Thankamani C.T on 4 December, 2025
2025:KER:88719
W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20566 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
PAYYANUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,
PAYYANNUR P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.T.S.BHARATH KRISHNA
SHRI.MRINAL CHAND M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THANKAMANI C.T.,
C.T. HOUSE, KANDOTH P.O., KANNUR, PIN - 670307
2 THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR,
SP OFFICE ROAD, THAVAKKARA,
KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670002
BY ADV SMT.LAKSHMI SREEDHAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2025 THE COURT ON 04.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:88719
W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -2-
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 award in I.D No.46/2022 on the file of the Labour Court, Kannur. I.D. No.46/2022 is an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kannur under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act') to adjudicate the following issue:
"Whether the termination from service of Smt. Thankamoni C.T., Clerk, PES Vidyalaya, Edat, Payyannur-670327, at the age of 56 by the management of PES Vidyalaya, is justifiable or not? If not, what relief is she entitled to?"
2. The 1st respondent was working as an 'Ayah' at the PES Vidayalaya since 14-06-1990. According to the 1st respondent from the year 1997 she was working as a clerk. The date of birth of the 1 st respondent is 31-05-1963 and on the premise that going by the applicable bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBSE'), the retirement age applicable to the 1st respondent was 56, the 1st respondent was compulsorily retired from service on 31-05-2019 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the 1st respondent, the Rule followed in the school till then was that the employees would retire only on attaining the age of 58. It was the case of the 1st respondent that since the eligible age for 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -3- pension from the Employees Pension Scheme is 58 the 1 st respondent will be put to serious prejudice and hardships if she is made to retire at the age of 56.
3. The Labour Court on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the unilateral reduction of retirement age by the management was unjustified and contrary to the CBSE Affiliation bye-laws and also to the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act and on the basis of the above finding the Labour Court concluded that the 1 st respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,14,880/- on the basis that had the 1 st respondent not been compulsorily retired from school on 31-05-2019 she would be entitled to continue till 31-05-2021. The amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the last drawn salary of the 1 st respondent calculated for the period of 2 years i.e., from 31-05-2019 till 31-05-2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 award is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that Ext.P2 is the CBSE Affiliation bye-law. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in Clause 5.3 of Ext.P2 the management of the school was required to define the Service Rules of teaching and non-teaching staff on the lines of the employees of the appropriate Government. It is submitted that the term 'appropriate Government' is defined in Clause 1.3.29 of the CBSE Affiliation bye-law. It is submitted that the term 'appropriate Government' has been given the same 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -4- meaning that is given to the term in Section 2 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTE Act'). It is submitted that by virtue of the provisions of Section 2 (a) (ii) (A) of the 2009 Act, 'appropriate Government' in this case means the State Government. It is submitted that the age of retirement of State Government employees is fixed at 56 in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 60 of the Kerala Service Rules (Part-I). It is submitted that the CBSE Affiliation bye- laws which were relied upon by the Labour Court are the superceded bye-laws and the finding that the retirement age was not 56 as per the CBSE Affiliation bye-laws is on the basis of a notification issued on 18-02-2014 as Circular No.22 bearing NoCBSE/AFF/Circular/2014. The learned counsel has placed for my consideration a copy of the aforesaid circular. It is submitted that Ext.P2 CBSE Affiliation bye-laws were in replacement of the earlier bye-laws and thus the 2014 circular could not have been relied upon to establish that the retirement age is 58 and not 56. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act has no application as the age of retirement is not a matter set out in the 4th schedule of the 1947 Act. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P5 award is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent vehemently opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is contended that a perusal 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -5- of Ext.P2 CBSE Affiliation bye-laws will indicate that while the Service Rules of the employees of the appropriate Government may apply to employees of the CBSE Affiliated schools, those Service Rules have to be approved and adopted by the school management for it to have any application. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any Service Rules of the State Government have been prepared and adopted by the school management. It is submitted that in the absence of any such approved Rules, the employees like the 1st respondent were entitled to continue till the age of 60 and could not be required to retire on attaining the age of 56. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act and submitted that since it is admitted that the petitioner used to permit its employees to continue till the age of 58 till the date on which the 1 st respondent was compulsorily retired from service, any change of that condition could not have been effected without the notice contemplated by the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act. It is submitted with reference to the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court that even though Ext.P2 CBSE Affiliation bye-laws came into force in the year 2018 it is clear from the written statement that the petitioner school started implementing it only from March 2021 onwards. It is submitted that in such circumstances the award of the Labour court calls for no interference in exercise of 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -6- jurisdiction vested in this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the Labour Court had relied on the affiliation bye-laws of the CBSE which were superseded by Ext.P2 bye-laws. In Ext.P2 bye-laws, it is provided as follows:-
"The school shall define the service rules of teaching & non- teaching staff on the lines of the service rules of the employees of Appropriate Government. The service rules shall be approved by the School Management Committee and the Trust/Society/Company running the school and invariably have specific and well documented provisions in respect of the following;
5.3.1 Appointments 5.3.2 Medical Certificate, Character Certificate, etc 5.3.3 Probation (Including Extension of Probation) 5.3.4 Confirmation 5.3.5 Termination of Service due to Abolition of Posts, etc. 5.3.6 Age of Retirement 5.3.7 Working Days and Working Hours 5.3.8 Number of Teaching Periods 5.3.9 Maintenance of Record by the Teachers 5.3.10 Attendance of Employees 5.3.11 Contributory Provident Fund Pension Scheme 5.3.12 Representations to the School Management 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -7- 5.3.13 Permission to add Qualifications 5.3.14 Application for Another Post 5.3.15 Private and other Tuitions 5.3.16 Leave. Grant of Leave 5.3.17 Duties and Code of Conduct for Employees 5.3.18 Service Books 5.3.19 Performance Appraisal Reports 5.3.20 Disciplinary Procedure: Suspension and Reinstatement etc. 5.3.21 Constitution of Disciplinary Committee 5.3.22 Procedure of Imposing Penalties etc. Penalties (Minor and Major), Powers of Imposing Penalties and 5.3.23 Payment of Pay and Allowances on Reinstatement The term 'appropriate government' in clause 5.3 of the bye-laws has been defined in clause 1.3.29 of the bye-laws giving the term the same meaning as contained in Section 2(a)(ii)(A) of the RTE Act. Section 2(a) of the RTE Act reads thus:-
"Section 2 Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "appropriate Government" means--
(i) in relation to a school established, owned or controlled by the Central Government, or the administrator of the Union Territory, having no Legislature, the Central Government;
(ii) in relation to a school, other than the school referred to in sub-clause (i), established within the territory of--
2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -8- (A) a State, the State Government;
(B) a Union territory having Legislature, the Government of that Union territory;"
A combined reading of clauses 5.3 and 1.3.29 of Ext.P2 guidelines and the definition of the term 'appropriate government' in Section 2(a) (ii) (A) of the RTE Act indicates that the retirement age of employees of the school will be the retirement age fixed by the State Government in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 60 of the Kerala Service Rules (Part I). The circular relied on by the Labour Court is a Circular issued in the year 2014. The finding of the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 9A of the 1947 Act have been violated also cannot be accepted as the provisions of Section 9A apply only to matters set out in the IV Schedule. The age of retirement is not a matter set out in the IV Schedule to the 1947 Act. Therefore, this finding of the Labour Court also cannot be sustained.
Thus, this writ petition is allowed and Ex.P5 award of the Labour Court, Kannur in I.D.No.46/2022 will stand set aside.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG 2025:KER:88719 W.P (C) No.20566/2025 -9- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20566/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN I.D.NO.46 OF 2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WORKMEN, DATED 03.11.2022 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CBSE AFFILIATION BYE-LAWS.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN I.D.NO.46 OF 2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 27/12/2022 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN I.D.NO.46 OF 2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WORKMEN, DATED 04/02/2023 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D.NO.46 OF 2022 DATED 10/1/2025 OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 02-06-2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE LABOUR COURT KANNUR IN CLAIM PETITION NO.09/2025