TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules in favor of employee on retirement age dispute</h1> <h3>S.P. Dubey Versus M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. and Anr.</h3> S.P. Dubey Versus M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. and Anr. - 1991 AIR 276 (SC) Issues:1. Determination of age of superannuation for an employee.2. Interpretation of statutory rules and regulations governing employee retirement.3. Applicability of directions issued by the State Government to the Corporation.4. Assurance and protection of conditions of service for employees during company takeover.Analysis:1. The case involved the retirement of an employee, S.P. Dubey, from the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at the age of 58, who claimed the age of superannuation was 60 years, rendering his retirement illegal.2. The Supreme Court examined the history of Dubey's service, starting from his employment with the Central Provinces Transport Service Limited in 1947, where the age of superannuation was fixed at 60 years. The State of Madhya Pradesh took over the company in 1955, ensuring that the conditions of service for the staff remained protected.3. The Court noted that the Corporation was established in 1962, and the State Government issued directions in 1963 binding the Corporation to ensure that employees' conditions of service were not adversely affected. The regulations framed by the Corporation, including the age of superannuation at 58 years, were subject to these directions.4. Emphasizing the importance of honoring assurances given during the takeover of a private company by the State Government, the Court held that the age of superannuation fixed by State Service rules could not be applied to employees like Dubey, who were assured protection of their existing conditions of service.5. The Court cited precedent to establish that the Corporation was bound by the directions issued by the State Government under Section 34 of the Act, and any regulations contrary to these directions were not applicable. Therefore, Regulation 59, which set the age of superannuation at 58 years, did not apply to Dubey.6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the respondents to pay Dubey two years' emoluments as he had already turned 60 years old. The costs were quantified at Rs. 5,000.
TaxTMI 