JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. - Heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K. M. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate representing the contesting Respondent No. 2, at length and in detail. 2. The award dated 25th November, 1981 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court III, Kanpur, rendered in Adjudication Case No. 155 of 1980 upon a reference by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Respondent No. 1, u/s 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s Cawnpore Textiles Ltd. Kanpur, the Petitioner. 3. By the impugned award, the Petitioner has been directed to reinstate Sri Sheo Narain Bajpai, the Respondent No. 2, and pay the emoluments etc. with effect from 1st July, 1979. This Direction is based on the finding that the dispensation of the services of the Respondent No. 2 was not proper rather it was discriminatory. 4. It appears that the Respondent No. 2 was to attain the age of 60 years on 20th June, 1979 which is according to the Petitioner, the age of retirement of a workman employed with it. The Respondent No. 2 was, therefore, served with a notice dated 1st June, 1979 requiring him to retire with effect from 1st July, 1979. This led to the industrial dispute which culminated into the impugned award. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, it was pleaded that there was no age of retirement fixed for the workman employed with the Petitioner and as such he was entitled to continue in the employment till he was fit to discharge his duties of workman. On behalf of the Petitioner it was pleaded that the age of retirement fixed for the workmen employed with it was 60 years. The age of 60 years for retirement of the workman, according to the Petitioner, was fixed by the award of Dr. Sampurnanand, Arbitrator, in the matter of Arbitration between all the ten Cotton Textile Mills of Kanpur and their workmen, published in the Government Gazette of Uttar Pradesh, Extraordinary, dated August 14, 1962 to which the Petitioner as well as its workmen were party. 5. The Labour Court has found, as a matter of fact, that the award of Dr. Sampurnanand, Arbitrator, in the matter of Arbitration between all the ten Cotton Textile Mills of Kanpur and their workmen, published in the Government Gazette of Uttar Pradesh, Extraordinary, dated August 14, 1962 to which the Petitioner as well as its workmen were party. 5. The Labour Court has found, as a matter of fact, that the award of Dr. Sampurnanand, referred to above, was enforced in 1962 and it was binding on all Cotton Mills of Kanpur including the Petitioner But the same was not rigorously enforced by the Petitioner so far it related to the age of retirement of a workman in as much as several workmen were allowed to continue to remain in the employment notwithstanding their attaining the age of 60 years. The Labour Court has held that allowing the several workmen to continue in the employment of the Petitioner after attaining the age of 60 years and requiring the Respondent No. 2 to retire at the age of 60 years amounted to discrimination and in these circumstances, the retirement of the Respondent No. 2 was not proper. 6. The Court, after giving its anxious consideration to the controversy, is of the opinion that the Labour Court misdirected itself in examining the case on the touch-stone of equality. 7. Paragraph 140 of the award of Dr. Sampurnanand which was published as required by sub-section (3) of section 6 and attained the finality under sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Act, prescribes the age of superannuation for the workers in the Textiles Mills at Kanpur to be 60 years. The aforesaid paragraph 140 of the award reads thus : 140. Taking into consideration all these factors, my finding is that the age of superannuation for the workers in textiles Mills at Kanpur should be 60 years. 8. It is not disputed that the award of Dr. Sampurnanand is applicable to the Petitioner and its workman. Therefore, the age of superannuation of the workmen working in the Petitioner mill has to be taken to be 60 years and if a workman is required to retire on attaining the age of superannuation ,no umbrage can be taken. The Respondent No. 2 could be and rightly required to retire with effect from 1st July, 1979 on attaining the age of 60 years. 9. The Respondent No. 2 could be and rightly required to retire with effect from 1st July, 1979 on attaining the age of 60 years. 9. The other aspect which it appears, weighed heavily with the Labour Court is alleged discrimination practiced against the Respondent No. 2 as against the workmen who were allowed to continue in the employment notwithstanding their attaining the age of 60 years. The circumstances in which certain workmen were allowed by the Petitioner to continue in the employment even after attaining the age of 60 years have been sufficiently explained. In any case, it has to be remembered that retirement from employment is a necessary incident thereof and no element of discrimination is involved therein. Sri K. Dayal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Respondent No. 2, submits that by the word 'discrimination' the Labour Court did not mean discrimination as such, what it meant was unfair labour practice. According to him the retirement of the Respondent No. 2 amounted to unfair labour practice and as such the Labour Court was perfectly justified in striking down the same. The submission of Sri Dayal is totally misconceived and without any substance. The retirement of a workman on attaining the age of superannuation in terms of the condition of service does not amount to unfair labour practice. 10. For the reasons stated, hereinbefore, the Court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned award is erroneous and must perish. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award dated 25th November, 1981, a copy whereof is V Annexure to the petition is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.