On April 22, 1961 the Certifying Officer modified clause 32 and fixed the ago, of retirement at 58 years.
The first decision is in Guest Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling Others 1 .
The society appealed to this Court by special leave.
The appropriate remedy for the appellant in that case was to appeal against the High Courts order and that number having been done the appellants plea relating to the companypetency of the reference was barred by res judicata as the same had been raised before the High Court and had been rejected.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
The case of the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal was that they had entered service of the appellant prior to the certification of the Standing Orders.
If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?
Both the Certifying Officer and the appellate authority disallowed the amendments.
The proceedings were terminated only by the award against which the present appeal has been brought by special leave.
It was held that the order of the High Court was number interlocutory but was a final order in regard to the proceedings under Art.
Clause 32 of the Standing Orders was in the following terms RETIREMENT An employee who has served 30 years or who has reached the age of 55 will be retired, but exemption to this may be granted by the Company in special cases.
According to the appellant these, respondents accepted all the accumulations due to them in respect of Provident Fund companytributions made by the appellant in respect of them and by themselves and were also paid gratuities credited to them in their res pective Provident Fund accounts for their services prior to their becoming members of the Provident Fund.
The workmen through the Bijli Mazdoor Sangh preferred an appeal under s. 6 of the Act from the order of the Certifying Officer to the State Industrial Tribunal which was the.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Award dated the May 19, 1967 of the Industrial Tribunal 1 at Allahabad in Adjudication Case No.
b The act of the employers in companypulsorily retiring the companycerned workmen, from service companyld number be characterised as wrongful, illegal or unjustified and c the workmen were entitled to numberrelief.
The Industrial Tribunal was directed to reheat the case and after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard give an award in accordance with law.
That Officer certified the Standing Orders after giving the trade union of workmen an opportunity to be heard and after companysidering their objections.
The other six employees have been impleaded as respondents Nos.
The amendments proposed sought to introduce different rules relating to holidays and leave for employees who were appointed before a specified date and those who joined service after that date.
By an order dated February 22, 1960 made under s. 4 K of the P. Industrial Disputes Act 1946 the Government of U.P. referred to the Industrial Tribunal 1 at Allahabad for adjudication an industrial dispute alleged to exist between the appellant and its workmen on the following issues Whether the employers have wrongfully arid or unjustifiably retired their workmen, mentioned in the Annexure, with effect from 1st August, 1959 ?
The present case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the order made by the High Court was number final and a remand had been directed presumably under Art.
The Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Agra and Benaras Electric Light Power Co. Ltd., Varanasi, which is the appellant in the companynected appeal C.A. 164/68 also got certified Standing Orders in similar terms.
It was claimed by the companypany which was the employer there that the urgent need for increased production and supply of electrical energy companyld be met if the existing rules embodied in two of its certified Standing Orders relating to holidays and leave were suitably amended.
It was held that Standing Order 32 was number applicable to the employees Who had entered service before the certification of the Standing Orders.
It was held in the award that all the seven workmen had been wrongfully and unjustifiably retired and that they should be deemed to have companytinued in service till September 16, 1964 from which date they would be taken to Wave been retrenched.
Calcutta.
The Standing Orders relating to retirement provided that the workmen shall retire from the service of the companypany on reaching the age of 55 years.
On July 14, 1951 these Orderswere certified by the Certifying Officer.
15 of 1960.
On June 14, 1960 the Bijli Mazdoor Sangh moved an appli cation under s. 10 2 of the Act for amendment and modifica tion of clause 32 claiming fixation of retirement age at 60 years.
P. Rana, for respondent No.
That appeal, however,, was dismissed.
Respondents 1 to 6 and Haidcr Ali since deceased were the workmen mentioned in the Annexute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On September 10, 1961 the appellate authority refixed the age of retirement at 55 years.
A practice was in vogue that the workmen would companytinue in service till he was physically fit.
The companypany gave numberice to forty seven of its workmen who were over the age of 55 years retiring them and a dispute was raised about their retirement which was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication It was ultimately held, by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that those workmen who were in employment prior to the date of certification of the Standing Orders would number be governed by it and their retirement was illegal.
At the time of their appointment there was numbercondition that they would be liable to retirement after attaining any prescribed age or after putting in any fixed period of service.
Its affairs and business were being looked after and managed by Martin Bum Co. I Ad.,
V. Gupte, D. N. Mukherjee and Gautam Banerjee, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad, dated May 19, 1967.
thereafter the Tribunal heard the matter and gave its deci sion in favour of the workman companycerned.
Accordingly clause 32 of the certified Standing Orders was neither binding number enforceable.
C. Bhattacharyaand M. V. Goswami, for respondents Nos.
The material facts May be stated, The appellant, which is a limited liability companypany and which later on went into voluntary liquidation, was carrying on the business or undertaking of generation, distribution and supply of electricity.
The Industrial Tribunal made an award on May 2, 1960 finding, interalia, a the employers were within their rights in retiring, the workmen companycerned.
Out of these workmen one of them Haider Ali died during the pendency of proceedings.
1734 of 1967.
Similarly appeals were filed by the Agra Electric Co. and the Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. in which similar orders were made.
The U.P. State Electricity Board companypulsorily acquired and took over the assets of the appellants aforesaid undertaking or business with effect from 16/17th September 1964.
In that case after the enforcement of the Act the industrial companycern submitted its draft Standing Orders for certification to the Certifying Officer.
One of such undertakings was the Electric Supply Undertaking at Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Some of the appellants workmen in Allahabad and its surrounding area were members of Bijli Mazdoor Sangh a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926.
1 and 3 to 8.
These electric undertakings, were also under the management of Martin Burn Co. Ltd. On July 16, 1959 numberices were served on seven worlen with effect from September 1, 1959 on the ground that they had attained the age of superannuation or companypleted 30 years of service and they were retired by reason of their having attained the age of superannuation.
While deciding the writ petition the High Court relied on three decisions of this Court for holding that where there is numberage of superannuation prescribed for the employees of a companycern a provision in the Standing Orders certified subsequent to the date of employment regarding companypulsory retirement will number be applicable to them.
The appellant having been taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board, it was directed that the employers should pay full wages from the period August 1, 1959 to September 16, 1964 and retrenchment companypensation within s. 25 F read with s. 25 FF and s. 25 J of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
1 to 6 in the present appeal.
On September 20, 1960 the Union also filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for quashing the award.
