DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court allowing the application made by the respondent under section 25-A of the I. R. O. And ordering re-instatement with full back benefits.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 13-10-1975 for remaining absent for more than ten days with effect from 24- 12-1975. An inquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charge. However, he tendered an apology in writing on 6-12-1975. The apology was accepted and a letter of warning dated 8-12-1975 was issued.
3. The respondent continued to remain in service till a notice of retirement dated 15-5-1976 was served upon him. It was indicated in the letter that he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation which was sixty years.
4. Aggrieved by this the respondent served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R. O. Making allegation that he was retired from service due to victimization as he had filed certain cases against the appellant and he had refused to resign as required by the appellant. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant had reached the superannuation age of sixty years and, therefore, he was retired from service. The allegation of victimization was denied.
5. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the appel--lant had been victimized and, therefore, he ordered re-instatement. Aggrieved by this the present appeal had been filed.
6. The only question which requires consideration is whether the appel--lant was retired on attaining the age of superannuation or as a result of victimisation. It' is an admitted position that at the time when the appellant had been retired from service he has crossed the age of sixty years. It was pleaded by the appellant that the age of superannuation was sixty years and, therefore, the appellant was retired. This plea was rejected by the learned 'residing Officer and he held that there was no proof that the appellant had fixed any age of superannuation. I entirely agree with the view taken by him. An attempt was made to produce an appointment letter dated 9-2-1972 ported to have been signed by the respondent in which it was shown that the retirement age in the Company was sixty years. The respondent was never conf--ronted with this letter and, therefore, it was excluded from consideration by the earned Presiding Officer. A notice dated 9-2-1972 was also produced whereby he age of retirement was fixed at sixty years but this letter too was rejected by he learned Presiding Officer as this letter as well as the appointment letter were for the first time produced by the witness of the appellant in his evidence. Secondly the notice was issued long after the appointment of the appellant and, therefore, it could not have the retrospective effect.
Furthermore at the time of arguments before me the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement before me that he did not wish to rely upon these two documents. In the circumstances I have no alternative but to exclude them from consideration.
7. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that permanent appointment did not mean that a person was employed for life and, therefore, the age of retirement at sixty years was not only reasonable but the management had unfettered right to retire his employee on attaining the age of sixty years which was deemed to be a reasonable age of retirement. It was further contented that the respondent was jobber and he was to supervise the work of the workers under him and at the same time to repair the machinery and on attaining the age of sixty years his efficiency had decreased.
8. There can be no dispute that no person is employed for life and there ought to be some age of retirement but when retirement age is not fixed a person is entitled to remain in service as long as he is fit to perform his duty. No evidence had been led on behalf of the appellant that the respondent is rendered incapable of performing the duties properly or the work is suffering on account of his old age.
9. Apart from this, it has been rightly held by the learned Presiding officer that it was a case of victimization. He gave elaborate and convincing reasons for coming to that conclusion. After a previous charge-sheet was dropped the respondent claimed his dues and filed a number of cases.
Most of his cases were dismissed and one was still pending when he was retired cum service so there can be no manner of doubt that the reason for retirement is not true and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Labour court.
10. In the result I dismiss the appeal. By this time the respondent has reached sixty-one years. It will be open to the appellant to get the respondent medically examined in order to determine his fitness to perform his duties and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law.