Respondent sent a reply dated 14.6.1999 wherein he admitted his unauthorised absence from time to time and again gave the reason as advanced age and ill health of himself and his wife.
The Tribunal by award dated 14.9.2001 held that the IAL management was justified in companypulsorily retiring the respondent with effect from 26.8.1999 and respondent was number entitled to any relief.
A show cause numberice dated 27.5.1999 was issued by the companypetent authority proposing to retire him from service at the close of work on 26.8.1999.
He requested that he may be companytinued in service assuring satisfactory service in future.
Feeling aggrieved the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai in ID No.60/2000.
When he attained the age of 55 years his case was reviewed under Rule 12 of Indian Airlines Employees Service Regulations to companysider whether he should be companytinued in service beyond the age of 55 years.
The companypetent authority was number satisfied with the explanation.
Even thereafter his service was unsatisfactory resulting in several reprimands and warnings.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The respondent challenged the order of the Tribunal in P. No.23617/2001.
He was however again appointed as Security Assistant with effect from 17.8.1990, in the numbermal process of recruitmnent, under internal selection.
In view of it, the companypetent authority sent a letter dated 8.8.1998 stating that respondent will be companytinued in service for a specific period of one year, beyond 55 years, and that retention beyond one year would be subject to the outcome of review that will be carried out after monitoring his attendance and performance closely.
However, the respondents service companytinued to be unsatisfactory and his unauthorized absences companytinued.
Therefore by letter dated 15.7.1998 he companymunicated his decision to retire the respondent from service as at the close of work on 10.8.1998.
After companysidering the same, the companypetent authority passed an order dated 22.6.1999 companypulsorily retiring the respondent as at the close of work on 26.8.1999.
The show cause numberice referred to the unsatisfactory service and unauthorised absence for 20 days during the extended period of service.
The respondent gave a representation dated 18.5.1998 admitting absenteeism but offered an explanation that it was on account of family reasons.
Regulation 12, under which the respondent was companypulsorily retired, as it stood at the relevant point of time, is extracted below An employee shall retire from the service of the Corporation on attaining the age of 58 years provided that the companypetent authority may ask an employee to retire after he attains the age of 55 years on giving three months numberice without assigning any reason.
He was also chargesheeted in regard to the repeated acts of misconduct and was imposed the punishment of demotion to the post of Chowkidar on 26.5.1971.
Thereafter the respondent sought a personal interview with the companypetent authority and made a fervent appeal to reconsider his case assuring that he will number give room for any companyplaint in future.
He was also given the benefit of a time bound promotion on 6.7.1998.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. The appellant is the successor of Indian Airlines Ltd. for short IAL .
An employee, a on attaining the age of 55 years or b on the companypletion of 25 years of companytinuous service, may, by giving three months numberice, voluntarily retire from service.
On 12.9.1966 the respondent joined IAL as a Security Assistant.
His work was unsatisfactory and several warnings and minor punishments were given for insubordination, indiscipline, negligence, sleeping on duty etc.
