JUDGMENT:- By these petitions, employees who claimed to have joined services with Provincial Transport Services which ran public transport service in Nagpur City take exception to orders passed by Member, Industrial Court, rejecting their claim that they were entitled to serve till they attained age of sixty years. 2. I have heard Adv. Jamal and Adv. Ku. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, who tried their best to canvass the case of their respective clients that their clients had been employed by the Provincial Transport Service, and at the time of their appointment, the age of retirement was sixty years. Adv. Charpe and Adv. Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent M.S.R.T.C. opposed these contentions pointing out that the issue had already been concluded by judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1431 of 1987, decided on 27.09.1988. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that some aspects had not been considered in the said judgment and therefore, wanted to point out the said aspects to this Court. 3. The facts, which gave rise to the claims of the petitioners are as under: The provincial Transport Service was running bus service in Nagpur. Before its take over by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, it passed a resolution on 30th July, 1954 raising retirement age of its employees to sixty years. On 31.08.1955 the Government of Madhya Pradesh took over the Undertaking. Notification No.5200-3762-1- VII, whereby this undertaking was taken over by Madhya Pradesh Government has been quoted in one of the judgments in Complaint ULP No.435 of 1990 between Dinkar Phatak Vs. M.S.R.T.C., decided by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur on 10th December, 2001. In this notification, among other things, it has been mentioned that existing staff will not be adversely affected with regard to terms and conditions of their services. This recital in the said notification was sought to be invoked by the learned counsel for the petitioners to urge that the retirement age was sixty years in terms s of resolution of the Board of Provincial Transport Services dated 30th July, 1954. 4. This contention is fallacious. Since none of the petitioner had joined service before 31 st August, 1955 their service f conditions would be governed by the conditions prevalent at the time of their appointment. All the petitioners were appointed in the year 1957, after State of Bombay was formed on 01.11.1956. 4. This contention is fallacious. Since none of the petitioner had joined service before 31 st August, 1955 their service f conditions would be governed by the conditions prevalent at the time of their appointment. All the petitioners were appointed in the year 1957, after State of Bombay was formed on 01.11.1956. Therefore, absence of age of retirement in Standing Orders pertaining to M.P.R.T.C. is irrelevant. On the date of petitioners' appointment, they were employees of Bombay Government undertaking where retirement age was 55 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to place reliance on the judgment in the case of S. P. Dubey Vs. M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. & Anr., reported at JT 1990(4) S.C. 236. The age of superannuation of the employees of the company before take over was sixty years. The Government had given assurance that the service conditions of the employees will not be changed to the prejudice of the employees of company taken over. The observations of the Supreme Court, come in this context, whereby the Supreme Court ordered that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service up to the age of sixty years, since the appellant was in service of the company before its take over on 31st August, 1955. Conditions of his service could not, therefore, be changed. 5. The learned counsel -for the petitioners have been trying to say that the service conditions were in fact prejudicially affected by settlement in the year 1961 i.e. after their appointment. This is not correct. In the settlement of 1961 demand was to raise retirement age from 55 to 60 years and this was raised to 58 years, as can be see from Item No.24 in the agreement under Section 34 of C.P. and Berar Industrial Dispute Settlement Act, 1947, reached between Provincial Transport Services and State Transport Workers Union of Nagpur, Amravati and Yavatmal. It may be seen from this settlement that employees who had joined service after 0l.0l. 1957 were to have benefit of extended year of age of retirement up to 58 years. Even this document would show that the age of retirement was in fact 55 years when the petitioners in these bunch of petitions joined their services. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to show to me xerox copy of page No.1 10 from some document. Even this document would show that the age of retirement was in fact 55 years when the petitioners in these bunch of petitions joined their services. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners sought to show to me xerox copy of page No.1 10 from some document. The learned counsel too did not know from which document this page No.110 was taken. Even this page No.110 would show that the employees had joined service after 0l.01.1957 were to retire at the age 58 years and for remaining employees retirement age was 60 years. In order to avoid any confusion in this regard paragraph 5.77 at page 110 is reproduced as under: "5.77. According to Clause 24 of the agreement dt.9th March 1961, between the Provincial Transport Services, Nagpur and the State Transport Workers Unions at Nagpur, Amravati and YavatmaI. (a) Employees who have joined service after 1.1.1957 of or are hereafter promoted in the direct sector will be governed by the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation Rules and Regulations in the matter of retirement. These are reproduced below: "The retirement age would be extended to 58, provided the workman is physically and mentally fit and his work is satisfactory. No workman will be discontinued from service in the absence of orders in this connection. It will be the duty of the Unit Head to initiate action in this connection." (b) For remaining employees the present practice regarding age of retirement will continue (i.e. 60 years), same as applicable to S.T. employees (55 extended upto 58 years)." 7. Obviously, none of the petitioners joined before 01.01.1957. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the expression in Clause (b) of paragraph 5.77 on page 110, which was produced for my perusal, would show that the age of retirement for even petitioners, was sixty years. This argument is indeed strange. When there are two clauses (a) and (b) and the first clause, refers to employees who joined service after 01.01.1957 (category in which the petitioners fall), it is difficult to understand as to how the petitioners could claim that they belong to category (b) of "remaining employees". They are not "remaining employees" since they are covered by Clause (a). 8. At the cost of repetition let it be said that all the petitioners joined service after Provincial Transport Service became a Bombay Government Undertaking. They are not "remaining employees" since they are covered by Clause (a). 8. At the cost of repetition let it be said that all the petitioners joined service after Provincial Transport Service became a Bombay Government Undertaking. The age of retirement for employees in the transport undertaking of Bombay Government was Fifty Five years and not Sixty years. The petitioners had not produced any single document to show that the age of retirement of employees of the Transport Undertaking of Bombay Government was sixty years. The learned Members of Industrial Court therefore rightly rejected petitioner's complaints and the orders impugned do not call for any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 9. The entire claim of the petitioners is thoroughly misconceived and untenable and therefore, liable to be rejected. All the petitions are therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.