Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 569 (HP)

RAJINDER PARSHAD v. HRTC

2009-06-17

DEEPAK GUPTA, SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral):-The petitioner was working as Conductor with the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC). He was retired from service on 30.4.2009 on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner was aggrieved by this order dated 30.4.2009 and according to the petitioner, his age of retirement is 60 years and not 58 years. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Fundamental Rule 56(b). It is further contended that the petitioner is an employee of Himachal Road Transport Corporation which is an Industrial Establishment and therefore, in terms of Fundamental Rule 56(b), he can be superannuated only on attaining the age of sixty years. 3. It is not disputed before us that the Himachal Road Transport Corporation is an Industrial Establishment. In fact, this matter is beyond the pale of controversy and admits of no contradiction. The only question which arises is whether the petitioner is covered under Fundamental Rule 56(b) which reads as follows: “FR. 56 (b) a ‘workman’ who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. NOTE: In this Clause, a workman means a highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled artisan employed on a monthly rate of pay in an industrial or work-charged establishment”. Sh. Ashwani Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1991 S C 915 “The appellant has to satisfy two conditions to be a ‘workman’ under the above Rule. He has to be an “artisan” and also be employed in an ‘industrial’ or‘work-charged establishment’. A driver of staff car is undoubtedly a skilled or semiskilled person. He has to use his whole body specially his hands and feet to drive the vehicle. The definition of word ‘artisan’ is wide enough to include a driver of a car”. 4. This judgment had been followed by a learned Single Judge in CWP No.115 of 1998 titled State of H.P Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court & Acr. We had also followed this judgment in CWP No.1105 of 2009. Sh. The definition of word ‘artisan’ is wide enough to include a driver of a car”. 4. This judgment had been followed by a learned Single Judge in CWP No.115 of 1998 titled State of H.P Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court & Acr. We had also followed this judgment in CWP No.1105 of 2009. Sh. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the H.R.T.C states that when this Court decided CWP No.1105 of 2009, he could not bring to the notice of this Court a later judgment of the Apex Court delivered in State of Orissa and others Vs. Adwait Charan Mohanty and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 470. In that case also the question was whether the employees were liable to be superannuated only on attaining the age of 60 years. There were various categories of employees including Drivers who had been retired at the age of 58 years. The employees approached the Administrative Tribunal, Orissa which accepted the petition and held that these employees were workmen and entitled to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years as provided in Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code. In that case also, like in the present case, the State Government had framed statutory rules and as per these statutory rules, Class III employees were to retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The question before the Apex Court was whether a Class III Government servant who is a workman would retire on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years or whether he is entitled to remain in service until he attains the age of 60 years. The Apex Court considered the earlier judgment delivered in Prithipal Singh Vs. Union of India and held as follows:- “If the interpretation sought to be put up by the counsel for the respondents are given acceptance, it would render the very object of the rules ridiculous and all classes of government servants would be brought into the vortex of artisan. Class III consists of gazetted as well as non-gazetted employees. The Government servants in Class III shall retire on completion of 58 years. If the interpretation that every artisan is a workman if he produces an article with dexterity or service with dexterity by manual or technical labour, he would be entitled to remain in service till the completion of 60 years. The Government servants in Class III shall retire on completion of 58 years. If the interpretation that every artisan is a workman if he produces an article with dexterity or service with dexterity by manual or technical labour, he would be entitled to remain in service till the completion of 60 years. For example, even a Director of Town Planning or Chief Architect could be considered to be an artisan and, therefore, they too would be workmen entitled to superannuation up to the completion of 60 years of age. Similarly several officers in specified governmental activities would answer the definition of workman, in particular, the note to the proviso. It does not appear to be the object. As stated earlier, the object appears to be to bring artisan-workman governed by the statutory rules but on a par with Class IV employee and he alone is required to retire on completion of 60 years of age but not the gazetted or non-gazetted Class III government servants or even in Class II or I. 5. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the government employee in Class III service shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. Even an artisan-workman who was promoted or appointed to Class III service be it gazetted or non-gazetted shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. An artisan-workman who is working in an industrial or work-charged establishment but he is on a par with Class IV employee is to retire on attaining the age of 60 years under the second proviso to Rule 71(a) of the Code. In this view, it is not necessary to decide whether any industrial establishment in a government department, no specified, expressly, is an industry or a factory as contended by the respondents. The Code clearly gives benefit to them. One essential condition to be satisfied is that such an artisan-workman, be it highly skilled, skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, must, of necessity, be on monthly pay of the Government. 6. In the State of Himachal Pradesh also, it is not disputed that the Civil Services Rules are applicable to employees of HRTC and as per these rules, the Class III employees have to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years. While deciding CWP No.1105 of 2009, this Court had relied upon Fundamental Rule 56(b) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh’s case. While deciding CWP No.1105 of 2009, this Court had relied upon Fundamental Rule 56(b) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh’s case. At that time, our attention was not drawn to the second case referred to above. In view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the Apex Court has clearly held that the object appears to be to bring artisan-workman governed by the statutory rules on a par with Class IV employees and only such artisan-workmen are required to retire on completion of 60 years but not the Class III Government servants or above. 7. Secondly in the present case we also feel that a conductor can not by any stretch of imagination be said to be an artisan. Therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on a totally different footing. 8. In view of above discussion, we dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.