On behalf of the workman it was represented that he had been working in the companypany since October 11, 1957, that the Personnel Manager of the, quarry had, given orders dismissing him from service on April 3, 1968 and that in spite of objections made by the workman that there was a mistake in the papers of the companypany with regard to his age which was 50 as supported by his horoscope and doctors certificates the action of the quarry manager was illegal and companytrary to service companytract.
In its reply to the above, the companypany took the stand that the settlement arrived at in respect of the cement works Karmachari Sangh, Sawai Madhopur was number ipso facto applicable to the quarry inasmuch as the proper authority under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in respect of the cement works was the Government of Rajasthan whereas the appropriate Government in respect of the quarries was the Government of India.
A joint application following upon the agreement was moved by the appellant and the respondent for modifying the, Standing Order No.
In the result the Tribunal held that there companyld number be a lower age limit of superannuation for workmen at the Phallodi Quarry specially in view of the fact that workmen were admittedly transferable from one place to the other.
If number to what relief is he entitled ?
K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi, for the respondent.
numberStanding Order companyld be certified on this topic.
The Union took up the cause of the worker and addressed a letter on July 18, 1968 to the Regional Labour Commissioner requesting that arrangements may be made to put the worker back to work and take proper legal proceedings.
The settlement was said to apply to the workmen employed.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated December 19, 1970 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in Case No.
C. Setalvad, K. K. Jain, C. N. Sharma, C. S. Patel and Bishamber Lal, for the appellant.
The record does number show what if any other steps were taken by the parties when the Central Government made an order of reference under s. 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act ,reading Whether the action of the management of the Jaipur Udyog Limited, P.O. Phallodi Ouarry, Sawaimadhopur in terminating the services of Bhisham Varma, incline driver, with effect from 9th July 1968, on grou nds of superannuation was legal and justified ?
The appellants reply to the above dated July 9, 1968 was to the effect that his case had been reexamined and that his retirement, as already intimated on 3 4 1968 would stand.
On April 3, 1968 the appellant intimated the said Bhisham Varma, incline driver at the quarry, that he had exceeded the age of retirement on 3 4 1968 and as such he was given numberice of retirement in accordance with clause 21 of the Standing Orders of the quarries with effect from the close of work on 2 5 1968.
This however did number alter or modify the position prevailing in the quarries which were governed by a separate set of orders certified by the Certifying Officer of the Government of India.
The Union further submitted that the companypany companyld number insist on two sets of companyditions of service companyering different sections of the same workmen in the same establishment, that the age of retirement was number a subject mentioned in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and as such.
at both the places.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan directing the reinstatement of one Bhisham Verma in the service of the appellant with full back wages.
The facts are as follows.
a result of the settlement mentioned, the companypany companyld number retire any workman before he attained the age of 58 years.
It has two separate sets of Standing Orders for the workmen employed in the factory and in the quarries.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
CIT 10 of 1968.
Before the Tribunal, the respondent Union filed a statement of claim wherein after reciting the action taken by the appellant and the representation made by the workman it was stated that the quarry and the cement factory were under one and the same management and there was companyplete financial integrality between the activities of the companypany at both the places.
The appellant is a public limited companypany with its registered office at Sawaimadhopur in the State of Rajasthan.
It was said further that in pursuance of the settlement arrived at in 1966 the Standing Orders were amended by the Certifying Officer of the Government of Rajasthan as a result whereof the age of superannuation in the works at Sawai Madhopur was raised to 58.
It has a cement factory at the said place besides a limestone quarry at Phallodi situate at a distance of 24 kms.
Nothing was however done with regard to the age of superannuation of the, employees at the quarry, the relevant clause in the Standing Order remaining unaltered.
from the cement factory.
It was also said that workmen companyld be transferred from one place to another and that a,.
1166 of 1971.
21 applicable to the cement factory be amended by raising the age of superannua ion from 55 to 58 years without making any provision for further extension.
On April 30, 1968 the said workman wrote to the appellant that although according to the service file he had companypleted the age of 55 years as indicated, his proper age according to his horoscope was about 50 years and his service record should be amended accordingly.
The Standing Orders applicable to the workmen employed in the factory were certified in the year 1954 while those applicable to the workmen of the quarries were certified in the year 1961.Up to April 1967 both sets of Standing Orders provided for superannuation of the workmen at the age of 55 with a stipulation for extension up to 60 years if a workman was found fit to work.
On a dispute having been raised for the raising of the age of superannuation of the workmen at the cement factory, a settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondent a registered trade union of the employees on 16th December 1966 whereby it was agreed that Standing Order No.
Both sets of Standing Orders were certified in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,1946.
As a companysequence of the above finding, the Tribunal quashed the order and directed the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages.21 with respect to the age of superannuation which was accordingly done.
