Delhi HC sets aside Industrial Tribunal's decision on retirement age at The Indian Express

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has overturned the Industrial Tribunal's last year decision, raising the retirement age of The Indian Express workers from 58 to 60 years, effective from October 15, 2009, along with associated benefits.

The Indian Express Private Ltd had filed a plea on July 31 last year against the Tribunal's award, and a bench of Justice Anish Dayal has remanded the case back to the tibunal for a fresh review, stressing the need for a detailed examination of all materials and a renewed, reasoned approach.

The court criticised the Tribunal for neglecting established parameters in revising service conditions or wages, deeming its assessment irrational and cursory.

Although the tribunal had the correct jurisdiction, it did not exercise it appropriately, considering irrelevant materials and ignoring relevant ones, it said.

"... even while the Industrial Tribunal was correct in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it did not exercise its jurisdiction in the proper manner, considered irrelevant materials, ignored or did not requisition relevant materials, made an irrational, fragile, perfunctory and cursory assessment in order to reach its conclusion," the court held.

The tribunal not only increased the retirement age but also directed the newspaper to implement it within 60 days, failing which interest at 8 per cent per annum would be applicable.

In September last year, the court had temporarily allowed two retiring employee to continue their duties until further orders.

Justice Dayal stressed that the Tribunal's decision on retirement age lacked a robust foundation, citing slim reasons. He pointed out the substantial economic impact of raising retirement age across all employee cadres and called for a comprehensive assessment based on various relevant parameters.

"Increasing the retirement age across all cadres of employees in a large establishment involves a very high economic impact and therefore, it is necessary to analyse it threadbare, assess comprehensively on various relevant parameters,” the court said.

The court noted flaws in the Tribunal's reliance on the retirement age extension in other newspapers without adequate analysis. It pointed out the difference between a fixed retirement age and the option to extend based on health and performance factors, noting the existing Model Standing Order defining the superannuation age at 58 years.