KARAMCHAND T SHAHDADPURI v. KANDLA PORT TRUST

suggestions made by Mr. A.K. Shah were also recorded and with other trustees discussion was made after giving opportunity to the Labour Representatives under item no.

14.2. Shri A.K. Shah (Labour Trustee) stated that the points which have been made by him were aimed at ensuring that once the employee has the age of superannuation of 60 years it should remain the same irrespective of whether he gets promotion to higher post. Under item No.

14.8 Shri Manohar Kotwal stated that all the employees are workman and therefore there should be no difficulty in making addition to the list of workman annexed to the regulations. Under Item No.14.4., it was Chairman's clarification which has elaborately stated as to why other categories are not included. The Chairman pointed out that as per the recommendations of the Wage Board, the age of 60 years as retirement age, what had been done was to keep for those persons so long as they remain in the same category the age by 60 years, for all others the age of retirement is 58 years. The Chairman also stated that the special provision of 60 years for certain category has been made for employees who were in service prior to 11-4-1974. There was no ground for adding any more categories in the list. Under item No. 14.5 which is set out as whether Shri Manohar Kotwal stated that the item might be approved but the Chairman might give consideration to new categories, if any, which might be suggested by the Union for inclusion in the annexure to the regulations. Under Item No. 14.6, the Board approved the proposal and resolution 60 resolved to make the retirement regulations for the employees of the Board as per notification at Annexure-VI subject to the approval of the Union Government. It was provided under the aforesaid Regulations that every employee of the Board was to retire from the service on attaining the age of 58 years. Exception has been made under the Regulations that the employee who is workman and who entered the Board's service before 11-4-1974 will retire on attaining the age of 60 years. Under Explanation, a person appointed to a Class IV post before 11-4-1974 on his appointment and transferred after 11-4-1974 to another Class - IV post or to any category of post included in the list of workmen at Annexure-A shall retire at the age of 60 years. If he is appointed to a Class III category which is not one of the categories in the list of workman at Annexure A, he shall retire at the age of 58 years. (cid:1)As per clarification given by the Chairman in the Board meeting, the exception was required to be carved out from the retirement age of 58 years only for those employees who were under the categories already enjoying the age of 60 years as retirement age. Thus, any other category and / or employee who are not fulfilling these two categories were to retire at the age of 58 years.

7.(cid:9)Rejoinder affidavit has already been filed stating therein that the Pump Driver is not included in the list to be termed termed as "Workmen" for the purpose of Regulation 3 (e) of the Kandla Port Employees (Recruitment) Regulations. At the same time category of Pump Driver (Diesel) has been included in the list of Workman at Sr. No. 57. There were 40 Pump Drivers (Not Pump Drivers (Diesel). All these Pump Drivers were allowed to retire at attaining age of 60 years. Keshaji and Atu Shamji were working in Kandla Port Trust as Pump Drivers and they were not Pump Drivers (Diesel). They were allowed to retire at 60 years. Pump Driver is a category of workman. Mechanic is also a category of workman. Therefore, clubbing of these two categories and re-designating into one category viz. Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic, would not render it into a category of non-workman. Category of Driver (Motor) and the category of Pump Operator were clubbed together and redesignated as Pump Operator-cum-Driver and they are under category of workman. However, the Pump Operator-cum-Driver was not included in the list of workman. The Board has corrected the mistake and subsequently, in the year 1979, the category of Pump Operator-cum-Driver has been included in the list of workmen by way of amendment. Categories of Winchman, Quarter Master and higher categories within prefix of senior were added in the list of work in the year 1986. The list of workmen shown under the Regulations is not complete and exhaustive. The respondent authority has from time to time amended the said list and several categories of workmen are subsequently included in the list of workmen.

8.(cid:9)The petitioner worked as Pump Driver and used to operate diesel as well as electric Pumps. As a Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic, the petitioner was attending the defects and/or repairs and maintenance of machine. As such, the petitioner comes in the category of workman and hence he is entitled to all the benefits including the salary and allowance etc. as if he retired on attaining the age of 60 years.

9.(cid:9)I have carefully considered the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant papers on the record of this case.

10.(cid:9)The draft recruitment regulations for Kandla Port Employees are to replace fundamental Rules 56 as well as Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules of the Central Government which were adopted by the Board and the said regulations in draft were submitted to the Board in its meeting held on 20-3-1978. However, that issue was deferred as 2 Labour Trustees Shri Manohar Kotwal and Shri A.K. Shah suggested that these regulations first be discussed with the Union Representatives. Thereafter, the meeting was convened and an opportunity of hearing was given to the union representative. Elaborate submissions were made at the time of hearing with the other labour trustees. Certain items were clarified and were deleted and certain items were included and the classification was made under different Articles. The conclusion was made having with regard to the fact that certain categories already had the age of 60 years as retirement and that was made continue till they remain in the same category and the retirement age for them remained as 60 years but the age for all others the age of retirement is 58 years.

11.(cid:9)As regard the age of retirement it was settled that except as otherwise provided in the regulations, every employee of the Board shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. Some exception was made to the aforesaid Rules to the extent that the employee who is a workman within the definition of workman under the category shown at Annexure-A to the Regulations and who had entered the Board's service before 11-4-1974, to retire from service at the age of 60 years. Annexure-A to the Regulations has been framed by the Kandla Post Trust Board after considering the material on record, terms and conditions of the High Power Committee, irrespective of the pay scale or nature of the work or duty and the Regulations stated above have been approved by the Central.

12.(cid:9)The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Regulations do not provide any reason for making classification of the employees or workmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the Regulations, is not tenable and sustainable in the eye of law in view of the fact that the High Power Committee after hearing the members and affording an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the Union and considering the nature and duty of the workman, this Court does not find any reason to pass and to mould definition of workman mentioned in the Regulation only on the basis that no classification has been prescribed.

13.(cid:9)Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed that there are various posts which have been included as workman after permission, they are not included as workman. Only those the employees have been included in Annexure-A to the Regulation as workman for applicability of the retirement age of 60 years. As the definition of workman has been given in the context of the employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Regulation that cannot be compared with the workman defined under the Indian Industrial Disputes Act or artisan in Fundamental Rules.

14.(cid:9)In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground calling for interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. (cid:9) (cid:9)-0-0-0-0-0- (cid:9)