JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Chaubey, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award wherein the Labour Court directed the employers to grant two years wages and consequential benefits for wrongly retiring the workman at the age of 58 years. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman was working as a Fuesman in the Electricity Board and was retired w.e.f. 30.6.1987. The workman, being aggrieved by his wrongful retirement, raised an Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference order was “whether the retirement of the workman w.e.f. 30.6.1987 was valid or not ? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to ?” 3. The Labour Court after considering the material evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the workman was in the inferior service on the date when he was retired and, that as per the Board’s order and Regulations, an employee in the inferior service of the Board would retire at the age of 60 years and accordingly directed the employer to grant two years wages and all consequential benefits that would flow had the workman worked upto the age of 60 years. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present dispute could not have been referred to the Labour Court for adjudication and only those matters which are specified in the First Schedule could be referred for adjudication. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit, inasmuch as, wrongful retirement of the workman would come in the category of wrongful discharge which will come under Clause (3) of the First Schedule and, in any case, the dispute would come under Clause (6). Consequently, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the workman was appointed under the Regulations framed by the Board which are statutory in nature and therefore, the concept of industry is excluded and therefore, no industrial dispute could be referred. Consequently, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the workman was appointed under the Regulations framed by the Board which are statutory in nature and therefore, the concept of industry is excluded and therefore, no industrial dispute could be referred. This submission again bereft of merit, inasmuch as, there is nothing on the record to show that the appointment of the workman was made in pursuance of any specific Regulations framed by the Board. In the absence of any evidence, coupled with the fact that no such averment or ground was raised before the Labour Court, this Court is not inclined to consider the contention raised by the petitioner at this stage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in inferior service of the Board and, therefore, he was rightly retired at the age of 58 years. The learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has misinterpreted the Board’s order dated 1.6.1987 which clearly indicated that the person who were in the pay scale of Rs. 265-300 will not be treated to be in inferior service. 7. In order to decide the controversy, it is essential to consider various Board’s order issued by the Electricity Board from time to time. Three Government Orders which has been referred by the petitioner are dated 13.7.1978, 6.7.1981 and 1.6.1987. The Boards order dated 13.7.1978 listed various posts/categories which were treated as inferior staff. It did not include the post of Fuesman. By Board’s order dated 6.7.1981, a person employed in the pay scale of 260-313 was deemed to be treated in inferior service for the purposes of computation of age of superannuation under the U.P. State Electricity Board (Employees Retirement) Regulations 1975, which was 60 years. As per Annexure to this Board’s order, Petrolman-cum-Fuesman was categorised in inferior service. Subsequently, by Boards order dated 1.6.1987, employee’s in the pay-scale of Rs. 390-495, which had been introduced by way of merger of two pay-scales of Rs. 260-313 and Rs. 265-330, were to be treated in inferior service for the purpose of computation of age of superannuation at 60 years. In clause(2) of the said Board’s order, it was further stated that only those employees would be treated to be in inferior service who were earlier working in the pay scale of Rs. 260-313. 260-313 and Rs. 265-330, were to be treated in inferior service for the purpose of computation of age of superannuation at 60 years. In clause(2) of the said Board’s order, it was further stated that only those employees would be treated to be in inferior service who were earlier working in the pay scale of Rs. 260-313. 8. In the light of this Boards order the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the workman was in the pay scale of Rs. 265-330 and therefore, he was excluded from the inferior service and was, therefore,rightly retired at the age of 58 years. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. As per the Annexure to the Board’s order dated 1.6.1987, Petrolman-cum-Fuesman is categorised in inferior service. This Court is of the opinion that the three Board’s order, as indicated aforesaid, makes it absolutely clear that as per the list of categorisation given in the Annexure, a Fuesman comes in the category of inferior service. Further, the two pay scales of Rs. 265-330 and 260-313 have been merged in the pay scale of Rs. 390-495, which pay scale has been treated to be in inferior service. The workman who was in the pay scales of Rs. 390-495 automatically comes in inferior service, and therefore, would retire at the age of 60 years. Since the employers retired the workman at the age of 58 years, the same was illegal and the Labour Court was justified in making the award in his favour. This Court does not find any error in the impugned award. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ————