JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - The workman has filed this writ application challenging the award dated 24.07.1993 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, in I.D. Case No. 73 of 1990, holding the compulsory retirement of the workman by the State Government in the Transport Department to be legal and justified and that the workman is not entitled to any relief. 2. The Petitioner-workman being aggrieved by the order of State Government in the Transport Department dated the 16/17.12.1982 directing his compulsory retirement from service on attaining the age of 50 years, raised industrial dispute, which was taken up for conciliation & the same having ended in failure, the State Government in the Labour & Employment Department referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication. The terms of the dispute were as follows: Whetherthe action of the Commerce andTransport (Transport) Department/Management of O.S.R.T.C, Bhadrak in prematurely retiring Sri Raghunath Mahakud, Conductor, O.S.R.T.C, Bhadrak with effect from 17.12.82 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief is Sri Mahakud entitled? 3. The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he was appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile State Transport Service ("S.T.S." for short) under the Government of Orissa in the Transport Department on 28.02.1956 and was confirmed in the said post. In the year 1974 the State Government formed the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation ("OSRTC" for short) and the workman was deputed to work in the OSRTC without deputation allowance. While the workman was working as a Conductor in OSRTC, on deputation, he was issued with an order of compulsory retirement dated 16/17.12.1982, issued by the Secretary to Government, Commerce andTransport (Transport) Department, retiring him from service with effect from 20.12.1982, on attaining the age of 50 years. The plea of the workman was that he has been illegally retired from service on the basis of adverse remarks in his CCR, which have not been communicated to him and there is no allegation of lack of integrity and therefore, the order of his compulsory retirement is mala fide and illegal. 4. The case of the management was that the workman was initially appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile STS, under the Transport Department of the State Government. 4. The case of the management was that the workman was initially appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile STS, under the Transport Department of the State Government. With the formation of the OSRTC in the year 1974, the services of the workman were placed under the OSRTC on deputation, without payment of deputation allowance. The service conditions of such employee of the erstwhile STS were governed by the Orissa State Transport Employees Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971. On the basis of the past performance and the entries in the CCR of the workman, the Review Committee constituted by the State Government decided that the workman, who was working as a Conductor on deputation in the OSRTC, should be retired prematurely forthwith in public interest. Accordingly the State Government in exercise of its power under Rule 51 of the Orissa State Transport Employees Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971 (as amended), directed premature retirement of the workman with effect from 20.12.1982, on attaining the age of 50 years, allowing him three months pay and allowances in lieu of 3 months notice, as required under the said Rules. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following issues: "(i) Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to decide the premature retirement of Government servants who were on deputation to O.S.R.T.C? (ii) Whether the premature retirement of the workman with effect from 20.12.1982 is legal and/or justified? (iii) To what relief the workman is entitled? 6. The Labour Court, took into consideration the evidence adduced by the workman and the management with regard to the past conduct of the workman. In his cross-examination, the workman admitted that there were allegations against him for carrying passengers without ticket and punishment was awarded for that. He however did not remember if he was placed under suspension in 1958 for carrying passengers in the bus without ticket. He did not remember if he was placed under suspension from 27.09.1961 to 15.11.1961. He also did not remember if he was placed under suspension on 14.12.1962 and his increment for one year was stopped in a departmental proceeding in the year 1970 and that he was warned. He did not remember if he was placed under suspension from 27.09.1961 to 15.11.1961. He also did not remember if he was placed under suspension on 14.12.1962 and his increment for one year was stopped in a departmental proceeding in the year 1970 and that he was warned. The workman further stated that he did not remember if he was suspended m the year 1974 for carrying passengers without ticket, and that a proceeding was initialed against him in 1975 and he was placed under suspension in the year 1976. The workman further stated that he did not remember that he was punished on several occasions. 7. The evidence of the management-witness (M.W.1) revealed that the workman was awarded punishment 13 times during his service career for misconduct. In the year 1956 twice the workman was found carrying passengers in the bus without ticket. In the year 1957, the workman was placed under suspension and financial penalty was imposed. The workman was warned for failure to deposit Government cash. On 24.04.1958 the workman was placed under suspension and he was discharged from service but was subsequently reinstated. On 24.04.1968 the workman was found carrying luggage without issuing ticket, for which he was suspended and again reinstated. In 1961 the workman was placed under suspension and his increment for two months was stopped. In 1962 he was again placed under suspension and a departmental proceeding was drawn up and Ms increment was stopped. In 1974, he was suspended for carrying passengers without ticket, for which a proceeding was initiated and his pay was reduced to minimum iand he was warned. M.W.I further stated in his evidence-that a proceeding was drawn up against the workman in 1975 and in 1976 he was placed under suspension for carrying passengers without ticket and his increment was stopped for one year. In 1979 a proceeding was started against the workman and he was censured for carrying passengers without ticket. In 1981, one proceeding was drawn up for violation of the departmental rules and carrying passengers without ticket, for which, he was warned & penalty was recovered from him. 8. In 1979 a proceeding was started against the workman and he was censured for carrying passengers without ticket. In 1981, one proceeding was drawn up for violation of the departmental rules and carrying passengers without ticket, for which, he was warned & penalty was recovered from him. 8. Rule 51 of the Orissa State Transport Employees Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971, as amended vide Notification dated 02.04.1973 reads as under: Provided that an employee may retire from service any time' after completing thirty years of qualifying service or on attaining the age of 50 years on giving a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. The appropriate authority may also require an officer to retire in the public interest at any time after he has completed thirty years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years on giving a notice In writing to the employee at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire; xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, came to find that the workman was an employee under the State Government governed by the Orissa State Transport Employees Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1971, and has been prematurely retired from service as per Rule 51 of the said Rules (as amended), on the basis of the past performance and adverse entries in the CCR of the workman and the said order of premature retirement did not suffer from any mala fide or arbitrariness. 10. On a perusal of the proceedings of the Review Committee held on 18.11.1982, it is seen that the Committee reviewed the service records of 34 non-gazetted employees of the erstwhile S.T.S. including the Petitioner-workman, working in.OSRTC on deputation, who have completed 50 years of age or 30 years of qualifying service as on 31.07.1982. Considering the over-all performance of the concerned 14 employees including the workman, the Committee was pf the view that they should be retired prematurely forthwith, in public interest. Pursuant to such recommendation of the Review Commiittee, the State Government in Commerce & Transport (Transport) Department, issued the Order Dated 16/17.12.1982, directing pre-mature retirement of the workman with effect from 20.12.1982, on his. attaining the age of 50 years, 11. Pursuant to such recommendation of the Review Commiittee, the State Government in Commerce & Transport (Transport) Department, issued the Order Dated 16/17.12.1982, directing pre-mature retirement of the workman with effect from 20.12.1982, on his. attaining the age of 50 years, 11. The order of compulsory retirement has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily.The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The Government or the Review Committee shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of & performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character roils, both favourable & adverse. The object of such review is to weed out persons of doubtful integrity or patent inefficiency from public service. 12. The law with regard to the compulsory retirement has been considered by the Supreme Court as back as in the year 1970, in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Another wherein the Hon'ble Court held that an order of compulsory retiremept does not involve any civil consequences and the employee retired thereunder does not lose any of the rights acquired by him before retirement and that the rule of compulsory retirement is not intended for taking any penal action against the government servant. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the rule of compulsory retirement embodies one of the facets of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution and that the rule holds the balance between the rights of the individual Government servant and the interest of the public. Such rule is intended to enable the Government to energise its machinery and to make it efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. It was also held that the rules of natural justice are not attracted in such a case. If the appropriate authority forms the requisite opinion bona fide, it was held, its opinion cannot be challenged before the Courts though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or that it is based on collateral grounds or, that it is an arbitrary decision. 13. If the appropriate authority forms the requisite opinion bona fide, it was held, its opinion cannot be challenged before the Courts though it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or that it is based on collateral grounds or, that it is an arbitrary decision. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and another Vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and another while considering the principles with regard to compulsory retirement affirmed the view taken in J.N.Sirjhacase (supra) & held as under: (i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of. misbehavior. (ii) The order has to be passed by the goverhment on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an Appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is.found to be a perverse order. (iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such.remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basls'for interference. 14. In Allahabad Bank Officers Association and another Vs. (v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basls'for interference. 14. In Allahabad Bank Officers Association and another Vs. Allahabad Bank and others the Supreme Court held as under: The power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is one of the facets of doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310. of the Constitution. The object of compulsory retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service and also to dispense with the services of those whose integrity is doubtful so as to preserve purity in the administration. Generally speaking, Service Rules provide for compulsory retirement of a Government servant on his completing certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed age. His service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is taken whether he should-be compulsorily retired or continued further in service. There is no levelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanation from the Government servant. While misconduct and inefficiency are factors that enter into the account where the order is one of the dismissal or removal or of retirement, there is this difference that while in the case of retirement they merely furnish the background and the enquiry, if held & there is no duty to hold an enquiry is only for the satisfaction of the authorities who have to take action, in the case of dismissal or removal they form the very basis on which the order is made, as pointed out by this Court in Shyam Lal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and The Union of India (UOI), and The State of Bombay Vs. Saubhagchand M. Doshi. Thus, by its very nature the power to compulsorily retire a Government servant is distinct and separate from the power to punish him by way of removal, dismissal etc. for misconduct. A Government servant who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences. for misconduct. A Government servant who is compulsorily retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, compulsory retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences. Though compulsory retirement deprives a Government servant of the chance of serving and getting his pay till he attains the age of superannuation and thereafter to get pension that cannot be regarded in the eye of law as punishment as pointed out in the case of Shyamlat (supra) and Union of India (UOI) Vs. M.E. Reddy and Another, . 15. In the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, while considering its earlier decisions with regard to compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court held as under: The law rotating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus; (i) Whenever the service of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 16. Applying the principles of law as discussed above, to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner-workman suffers from mala fide or that it is based on no evidence or that it is arbitrary. Accordingly, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court in passing the, impugned award, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, no impropriety or illegality can be said to have been committed by the Labour Court in passing the, impugned award, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The writ application being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed