Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of award dated 03.03.2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad. Vide the said award, the reference made on a demand raised by the petitioner stands answered in favour of the Management and against the workman petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Policy of Management dated 13.12.1989 (Annexure P-1), according to which, on an employee having attained the age of 55 years is to be granted an extension of one year at a time, if he is considered fit on perusal of his previous records, conduct and also depending upon the medical fitness of the employee. This period of one year extension at a time would continue till the employee attains the age of 58 years. Counsel therefore, contends that although the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on 06.02.1993 but his claim, as per the Policy, was not considered for extension. His further contention is that no option was given to the petitioner as per the Policy and his medical fitness was also not assessed. Vide letter dated 06.02.1993 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was retired from service on his attaining the age of 55 years. As regards his work and conduct, he refers to the certificate issued by respondent No. 2 Company dated 14.05.1993 (Annexure P-3), wherein it has been assessed as good. He, on this basis, contends that the retirement of the petitioner vide letter dated 06.02.1993 (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable. He challenges the award passed by the Labour Court-I, Faridabad while contending that the findings with regard to the fact that the petitioner was not a workman and was working in the supervisory capacity and, therefore, not covered by the definition of `workman as provided under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained as it has come in his statement and is not disputed by respondent No. 2-Management that the petitioner was working as a Foreman. He was himself performing the manual work and also supervising 50-60 workers. A Charge-Hand and a Group Leader were also under him. He was himself performing the manual work and also supervising 50-60 workers. A Charge-Hand and a Group Leader were also under him. He contends that the observations of the Court below that there is a delay in making a demand by the petitioner also cannot be made a reason for not granting the benefit to the petitioner as it would be of no consequence and if that is taken into consideration, the petitioner can be deprived of the benefit of two years back wages, which is the delay, between the date of his retirement i.e. 06.02.1993 and when the demand was made i.e. 26.04.1995. He, on this basis, prays that the Present petition be allowed and the impugned award be set aside. 3. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 Company contends that as per the Circular of the Company, the age of retirement of all the employees is 55 years. The Policy dated 13.12.1989 (Annexure P-1) is a proviso and an exception to the general rule. No employee can seek extension as a matter of right. The discretion for grant of extension lies with the Management. Either the Company can, on its own, grant extension or on a request made by the employee and that too, on consideration of the previous records and conduct and also the medical fitness of the concerned employee. He, in any case, submits that on attaining the age of 55 years, the petitioner was retired, as per the Policy of the Company, from service on 06.02.1993 (Annexure P-2). He submits that nothing has been placed on record except the bald statement of the workman that too, before the Labour Court and in the demand notice dated 26.04.1995 that he had put a protest against his retirement. No document has been produced on record which would suggest what to say claim further extension. The petitioner having been retired from the Company pursued his claim for retinal benefits. He refers to Annexure R-1 Final Payment Voucher, Annexure R-2 Gratuity Payment Slip, Annexure R-3 Bank Voucher with regard to the release of gratuity, Annexure R-4 the Cover Letter with regard to the cheque, which was granted to the petitioner as retiral benefits under the scheme of the Company dated 17.05.1993 as also Annexure R-6 the Clearance Certificate from various departments of the Company dated 02.02.1993. In all these documents, the petitioner has been referred to as a retired employee of the Company. While receiving the money, on all these documents no protest whatsoever has been recorded by the petitioner. All dues were released to the petitioner in the month of May, 1993. There were no dues of the petitioner left with the company after May, 1993. Thereafter also there was no protest made by the petitioner and it is only when the demand notice dated 26.04.1995 is submitted by the petitioner that the first protest comes on behalf of the petitioner with regard to his retirement. He contends that had the petitioner intended continue in service he could have made a representation before his date of retirement, which admittedly has not been done. On this basis, he submits that the petitioner has been rightly retired from service of the Company and, therefore, he states that the award is fully justified. His further contention is that since the services of the petitioner were not terminated, it cannot amount to retrenchment as it is retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, retirement having been excluded specifically, under the Industrial Disputes Act, to be termination, the industrial dispute does not arise. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. The basic question, which needs to be decided in the present case, is as to whether the Circular dated 13.12.1989 (Annexure P-1) gives a right to an employee to continue in the employment beyond the age of 55 years without the employee claiming extension in employment or is it the discretion of the Management to either exercise the discretion on its own or on a request made by the employee ? The Circular dated 13.12.1989 (Annexure P-1) reads as follows :- "CIRCULAR As per prevailing practice, all employees (up to Grade 12) on attaining the age of 55 years are retired from the Company and they are given one year contract if they are medically fit and otherwise found suitable. But on the request of the union it has been agreed by the management that henceforth the employees will be given extension of one year every time till they attain the age of 58 years if the employees are considered fit on perusal of their previous employment records, conduct and depending upon the medical fitness. But on the request of the union it has been agreed by the management that henceforth the employees will be given extension of one year every time till they attain the age of 58 years if the employees are considered fit on perusal of their previous employment records, conduct and depending upon the medical fitness. However they will be compulsorily retired after attaining the age of 58 years. This policy will come into effective from 1.7.89. For Kelvinator of India Limited Sd/- (G.C. Narang) Chief Works Executive." A mere perusal of the Circular in itself suggests that the discretion vests with the Management whether to grant extension or not. The exception would be a request on behalf of the employee, if he intends to continue before he attains the age of 55 years, which is the normal retirement age of the Company. Mere request on behalf of the employee would not entitle him to the extension by one year as that request also has to fulfil the criteria laid down in the Circular itself. On consideration of the request and the employee having fulfilled the criteria specified therein, the Management would grant hire extension. The Circular further indicates that the Management can, on its own, grant an extension, if it so desires. 6. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not sought any extension in employment as it is not the case of the petitioner-workman that he had made such request to the Company before he attained the age of 55 years, which is the normal age of retirement. What has been contended by the petitioner is that he has cannot been considered as per the Circular dated 13.12.1989 for extension. This contention of the petitioner not be accepted as the discretion lies with the Management and if the employee wanted an extension in employment, he could have made a request to that effect. Having failed to do so, the employee cannot make a claim for extension in service beyond the normal age of retirement i.e. 55 years. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he had protested on receipt of the letter of retirement dated 06.02.1993. Nothing has been depicted or brought on record, which would suggest that there was any protest on the part of the petitioner. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he had protested on receipt of the letter of retirement dated 06.02.1993. Nothing has been depicted or brought on record, which would suggest that there was any protest on the part of the petitioner. Annexures R-1 to R-4 as well as Annexure R-6, which are the various payments made to the petitioner on his retirement, do not reflect any protest on the part of the petitioner. These documents and payments relate to date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 06.02.1993 to May, 1993. Till then, there was no protest whatsoever. Thereafter also, no documentary evidence has come forth except the bald statement, which he has made before the Labour Court with regard to his protest. The first resemblance of protest against his retirement dated 06.02.1993 has come in the form of a demand notice dated 26.04.1995 i.e. after a period of more than two years from the date or his retirement. The conduct and the evidence, which has been brought on record, leads to only one conclusion that the petitioner had accepted his retirement dated 06.02.1993 as he had himself got the retiral benefits calculated by pursuing the same at various levels and in the different departments. On receipt of these retiral benefits there was no protest on his part. Having accepted the retirement granted to him, no claim under the industrial Disputes Act could have been preferred by the petitioner. The demand notice dated 26.04.1995. Therefore, is an afterthought. As per Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, retrenchment has been defined but the same does not include, as per Clause (b), retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. It is an admitted position that the Company was applying the uniform Policy of retirement on all the employees on attaining the age of 55 years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was also aware of this fact that the age of retirement of the employee of the Company is 55 years. That being so, the present dispute, which has been raised by the petitioner, would be covered by the exception clause (b) to Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defines retrenchment. That being so, the present dispute, which has been raised by the petitioner, would be covered by the exception clause (b) to Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defines retrenchment. Therefore, there being no retrenchment termination of service of the petitioner would not fall within the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which would call for adjudication. In view of the conclusions, which have been reached hereinabove, I do not intend to further go into the other two questions, which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.