In a recent ruling by Justice Rekha Borana of the Rajasthan High Court, it was affirmed that the employer or government authority can indeed issue an order for compulsory retirement based on their subjective assessment. However, the court emphasized that this subjective judgment must be grounded in the evidence and information present in the employee's service record.

The bench emphasized that orders for compulsory retirement can be subject to interference if they meet one of the following criteria: (a) they are made with malicious intent, (b) they lack evidence to support them, or (c) they are so arbitrary that no reasonable person would form the necessary opinion based on the available material.

The case revolved around a decision made by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in Udaipur. Initially, the Tribunal had sided with the worker, declaring the compulsory retirement order dated October 16, 2001, as null and void. As a result, the Tribunal recognized the worker's service as uninterrupted from October 16, 2001, until the date of his retirement, granting him full salary and associated benefits for this duration. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Management decided to appeal to the Rajasthan High Court (referred to as the "High Court").

The Management contended that the Tribunal's decision rested heavily on the absence of specific documents, resulting in an unfavorable inference against the Corporation. It argued that the order of the Screening Committee, which provided justification for the compulsory retirement, was indeed available in the records and clearly outlined the reasoning behind the decision.

On the other hand, the workman mentioned that the ''delay in filing the claim was not detrimental, as the workman had initially sought a review from the Governor in 2004, following procedural guidelines for government employees facing compulsory retirement.''

After the dismissal of this petition in 2009, the workman promptly pursued his claim, leading to the 2015 reference. He emphasized that delays in labor disputes are not necessarily fatal and relief can be adjusted rather than denied.

Furthermore, the Management asserted that the compulsory retirement order was issued without affording the worker a hearing or providing any justification, rendering it illegal.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the bench, mentioned that the only item provided was a list outlining previous proceedings and penalties against the worker. However, this list failed to substantiate the arguments put forth by the Management. Additionally, without being officially exhibited on record and rebutted by the opposing party, it couldn't be considered as proven evidence.

The High Court underscored that the Management had been provided ample opportunities by the Labour Court to furnish the necessary documents. Despite a clear directive issued on November 22, 2019, instructing the Management to submit all pertinent documents or face adverse inference, the Corporation failed to adhere to this order. Consequently, the Labour Court ruled in favor of the worker due to the absence of contradictory evidence.

The High Court determined that the Corporation's failure to submit the documents already in its possession before the Labour Court lacked justification. It emphasized that compulsory retirement, although not considered a punitive measure, can be based on the subjective satisfaction of the employer, with limited grounds for judicial review unless the decision is found to be malicious, unfounded, or arbitrary. However, the High Court noted that the Management failed to present any evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate its subjective satisfaction in compelling the worker to retire. Similarly, no documents or records of disciplinary actions related to the worker's past conduct were provided before the High Court.

Case Title: Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). and anr vs Kalu Ram Sharma

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13648/2022

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Avin Chhangani with Ms. Prenal Lodha

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeet Purohit with Ms. Twinkle Purohit