IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 6672 of 2010 Decided on 12th March 2025 Shri Joginder Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged order dated 18.09.2009 (Annexure P-11), in terms whereof, the appropriate Government has refused to make a Reference of the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners, who were engaged by M/s Purolator India Limited Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., had raised demand notices under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, one of which notice is appended with the petition as Annexure P-6, wherein, the grievance raised by 2 them was that the employer was superannuating them before attaining the age of 60 years, whereas, in terms of the Industrial Standing Order Himachal Pradesh Rule 1973 as amended from time to time the age of retirement stood fixed at 60 years, which was binding on the employer company also. 3. In terms of the impugned order, the Labour Commissioner Himachal Pradesh has refused to make a Reference of the demand notice by assigning the following reasons:- “After careful examination of the above report and your demand notice it is found that as per Certified Standing Orders of the Company the age of retirement was 55 years. The Purolator Workers Union filed an application before the Certifying Officer for amendment of age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years and Joint Labour Commissioner-cum-Certifying Officer vide order dated 15.11.2003 amended the age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years. Further the company filed an appeal against the orders dated 15.11.2003 in the learned Labour Court and the said appeal was allowed by the learned Labour Court Shimla on 22.09.2007. Now the workers Union has filed a Civil Writ Petition No.1645/2007 before the Hon’ble High Court Himachal Pradesh against the orders passed by the learned Labour Court Shimla and which is pending for adjudication. Now you had been retired from service by the Management w.e.f. 08.04.2006, 24.09.2007, 20.03.2006, 24.09.2007, 11.02.2007 and 3 01.12.2006 respectively on attaining the age of superannuation as per the Old Certified Standing Orders of the company. As per your demand notice you have requested for the cancellation of Retirement Orders. Since Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide its orders dated 13.03.2008 has directed the respondent company that company shall not retire the employee on the basis of the new Certified Standing Orders till further orders of the Court. Therefore, your demand notice cannot be referred to the learned Labour court for adjudication and there is no justification of making reference of this dispute to learned Labour Court for adjudication at this stage. As the alleged dispute is frivolous and vexatious. Accordingly, you are informed as per the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that your dispute under reference in view of above mentioned reasons is not being referred to Hon’ble Labour Court of H.P. for adjudication.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned Deputy Advocate General and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In terms of the demand notice, there was a grievance raised by the workmen qua the age of their superannuation. However, the Labour Commissioner dwelled upon itself the role of an adjudicator while passing the impugned order without realizing that all it 4 had to do was to make a Reference to the learned Labour Court, if according to the Labour Commissioner indeed an Industrial Dispute was made out. Whether or not the Reference was to be answered in favour of the employee was not the domain of the Labour Commissioner and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Labour Commissioner while passing the impugned order. 5. In the light of the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 18.09.2009 is set aside and the Labour Commissioner is called upon to take a fresh call on the demand notices of the petitioners in accordance with law and after hearing the petitioners as well as the employer. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 12, 2025 (Vinod)