Brief facts In the year 1981, the appellant Company was incorporated as a joint venture between the Government of India and Republic of Nauru with an objective to manufacture Di Ammonium Phosphates.
Consequently, the appellant Company has filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
In the meanwhile, the Government of India, on 28.02.2002, divested its 74 shareholding in the appellant companypany in favour of one M s Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd. Zuari , thereby, keeping only 26 shareholding in its favour.
The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 30.08.2016, dismissed the writ petition and held, inter alia, that there was numbererror apparent in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.
Thereafter, the appellant Company also preferred a review petition but the same again got dismissed vide order dated 06.10.2016.
As a result, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 22.08.2001 to all Central Public Undertakings including the appellant intimating its decision to roll back the age of retirement of all the employees of Public Sector Undertaking from 60 years to 58 years.
Before this Memorandum, the Government of India, on 08.06.2000, had advised the appellant Company to review the decision on enhancement of age of retirement.
Being aggrieved, the Trade Union raised dispute with regard to the above and as a companysequence of the same, the Government of Orissa, Labour and Employment Department made Reference under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.
236 of 2016 respectively whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant herein Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.19 172636 IST Reason while upholding the decision dated 17.04.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.
Inspite of the enhancement of retirement age, the financial performance of the appellant Company still number improved.
As per the share holding agreements, under Clause 7.2 j it was provided that all the decisions taken by the Board of Directors of the appellant Company, prior to the date of the disinvestment, shall be binding on all companycerned.
The Industrial Tribunal, vide order dated 17.04.2010, disposed off the Reference and invalidated the action of the appellant Company of rolling back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years due to companytravention of Section 9A of the Act which says prior numberice must be given to the employees by the employer which the employer intentionally omitted to give in the present case.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant Company challenged the decision of the Industrial Tribunal by way of filing writ petition in the High Court of Orissa.
Pursuant to the said order dated 19.05.1998, the appellant Company implemented the said order vide order dated 19.11.1998 in Company with retrospective effect from 27.05.1998.
However, the appellant Company did number take any decision on the said advisory.
16 of 2003.
K. Agrawal, J. Leave granted.
On 17.07.2002, the appellant Company, by office order, withdrew the earlier office order dated 19.11.1998 and restored the age of retirement to 58 years in respect of all the employees in terms of Certified Standing Orders and Services Rules of the appellant Company.
The above appeals have been preferred against the impugned companymon judgments and orders dated 30.08.2016 and 06.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Orissa in WPC No.
9180 of 2010 and RVWPET No.
Later on, in the year 1993, the Republic of Nauru disinvested its entire equity stake to the Government of India and the appellant company became a wholly owned Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India having its companyporate and registered office at Bhubaneswar.
