The Management of Remington Rand of India Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Another

K. Veeraswami, C.J.—The appellant employer terminated the services of the 2nd respondent with effect from October 22, 1969. He had

not yet completed 58 years of age but completed 35 years of service. On the 2nd respondent''s petition to the Commissioner for Workmen''s

Compensation u/s 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, the question the commissioner had to decide was whether there was no

reasonable cause for the termination of the 2nd respondent''s services. The Commissioner found that one Krishnaswami, though he had completed

35 years of service, was retained even after that period on the ground that he had not yet completed 58 years of age. In the light of that the

Commissioner thought that there was no particular reason apparent from the evidence as to why a different treatment was accorded to the 2nd

respondent. On that ground the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the termination of the 2nd respondent was not for a reasonable cause.

The management''s petition under Article 226 of the Constitution having failed, it is before us in appeal.

Our jurisdiction in this appeal is quite narrow, to wit, to find whether the Commissioner in exercise of his jurisdiction misdirected himself in any

way in law. We can find no such misdirection. When Krishnaswami was retained till 58, the management should have given a convincing reason

why a differential treatment should have been given to the 2nd respondent. True it was that the 2nd respondent had only three months to complete

58 years of age before termination of his services. Even so, the fact remains that he was terminated before he attained the age of 58 years. With

reference to that it cannot be said that the Commissioner could not reasonably find that the termination was not for a reasonable cause in the

circumstances. Learned Counsel for the appellant presses upon us that although no standing orders as to superannuation existed at the time the 2nd

respondent entered into service, before his termination of service, it was generally accepted that the age of superannuation should be 58. Even so,

the appellant cannot succeed because the termination was before 58 years of age in the case of the 2nd respondent. For the 2nd respondent a

number of cases were cited to show the judicial trend in fixing the superannuation age. But, we cannot derive any positive rule from these decided

cases as to the superannuation age. Each case had been decided, as we find, on the facts, and also those were cases arising in appeals from

awards of Tribunals.

We are not satisfied that we are called upon to interfere in this case. The appeal is dismissed with costs of the 2nd respondent. Counsel''s fee

Rs. 100.