logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 316 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Karnataka
Case No : Writ Petition No. 6006 Of 2026 (L-RES)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Parties : Rameshwar Mahto Versus The Central Silk Board, Rep. by Its Member Secretary, Bengaluru & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Narayana Bhat Movvar., Advocate. For the Respondents: N.S. Narasimha Swamy, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 23-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India -  Article 226 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 16244,
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Sec. 18 (3) (D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Catch Words:
mandamus, superannuation, age of retirement, award, Article 14, Article 21, petition, relief

Summary:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to prevent superannuation at age 58 and to continue service until age 60, relying on a 2013 award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal that fixed the retirement age at 60 for Timescale Farm Workers. The Division Bench of this Court had earlier confirmed the award in Central Silk Board vs Employees Union. Respondents argue the award lacks finality pending Union approval. The Court notes that the award, already confirmed by the Division Bench, is binding and that the petitioner has already reached age 58. Consequently, the Court declares the petitioner’s superannuation age as 60 and directs respondents not to retire him at 58, allowing him to serve until 60 subject to applicable rules.

Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying Toa) quash the Clause A-11 of the Memorandum Bearing No. KE RE BO/KSHE RE UU AA KE /Ranchi/STHA/KAA.PRA.,KAA/15-16/101 dated 23/04/2016 issued by the R3 Makred at Annexure-A in so far as age of retirement is on attaining Age of 58 Years as the same is opposed to the award dated 01/04/2013 In C.R. No. 151/2007 passed by the CGIT marked at Annexure-B and also Sec. 18 (3) (D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.)

Oral Order

1. This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2026 to continue in service under the respondents till the petitioner completes the age of 60 years, which according to the petitioner is the age of superannuation.

2. The petitioner has filed the petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Central Silk Board vs Employees Union of Central Silk Board & Another1 wherein, in terms of the order dated 04.09.2024, this Court has dismissed the petition filed by first respondent Central Silk Board and confirmed the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.

3. In terms of the award dated 01.04.2013, the Tribunal has held that age of superannuation of the Timescale Farm Workers of the respondent establishment would be 60 years and not 55 years as contended by the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal is not questioned by the respondents and it has attained finality.

5. Thus, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner cannot be superannuated at the age of 58, and the petitioner is entitled to continue as the employee of respondent No.1 till the petitioner completes 60 years.

6. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that though the Board of first respondent has passed a resolution to implement the order, with effect from the date of the order passed in Central Silk Board supra, the Board is yet to receive the approval from the Union of India for the decision taken by the Board. It is further submitted that since respondents are awaiting the decision of Union of India, from the perspective of the respondents the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has not yet attained finality.

7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the award passed by the Tribunal enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years from 55 years is confirmed by the Division Bench in the case of Central Silk Board supra. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Timescale Farm Workers with respondent No.1. The petitioner has completed 58 years after the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court confirming the award passed by the Tribunal.

9. This being the position, the award passed by the Tribunal which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court comes to the aid of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the following relief:-

          (i) It is declared that the petitioner's age of superannuation is 60 years.

          (ii) The respondents shall not superannuate the petitioner treating the age of superannuation as 58 years.

          (iii) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to continue in employment as Timescale Farm Workers under first respondent till the age of superannuation at 60 subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner.

10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and findings.
 
  CDJLawJournal