In November, 1951, the appellant introduced standing orders under the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 Central Act 20 of 1946 was amended by the Act 36 of 1956.
One of the demands was to raise the age of retirement of the workmen in the establishment from 55.
The Union, on the other hand, companytended that, as the second respondent was appointed in 1946 when there was numberage fixed for superannuation, he was number bound by the provision as regards the age of superannuation in the standing orders of 1952 or the modified standing orders of 1961.
The Division Bench agreed with the view of the learned single judge and dismissed the appeal.
On August 18, 1962, respondent No.
On November 27, 1961, the appellant issued a numberice to the second respondent informing him that he was due to retire on August 31, 1962 as he would be attaining the age of 55 on that date.
The Tribunal also held that the age of retirement of all categories of workmen should be raised from 55 to 58 and that standing orders would stand modified accordingly.
On August 30, 1962, the second respondent wrote to the appellant to postpone taking a final decision on the matter as a dispute had already been raised about the retirement age of the workmen in the establishment.
The Standing Orders fixed at 55.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 28, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in appeal from Original Order No.
to 60.
3 wrote to the appellant to keep the retirement of second respondent in abeyance till a decision is arrived at on the charter of demands.
The appellant companytended before the Tribunal on the basis of the standing orders that the age of retirement was 55 years and that the action of the appellant in retiring the second respondent at the age of 55 was proper.
The second respondent was made to retire on September 1, 1962.
C. Sefalvad, G. L. Mukhoty and D. N. Gupta, for the ap pellant.
K. Chatterjee ,for respondents Nos.
It was this order that was challenged by the appellant in the appeal before the division bench.
The appellant companypany challenged the validity of the award in so far as it directed the reinstatement of the 2nd respondent, in the writ petition and companytended that the view of the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent was number bounds by the provision of the standing orders relating to age of retirement was erroneous as the standing orders would bind all the workmen in the establishment whether they were employed before or after the framing and certification of the standing orders.
What should be the age of retirement of the workmen in the factory ?
By his letter dated August 31, 1962, the Secretary of the appellant companypany replied that as long as the retirement age as provided in the stand ing orders was number altered, he had to be guided by the same but that, if at a later date, the retirement age was altered, the same will be adhered to.
What relief, if any, is he entitled to ?
201 of 1966.
This appeal is preferred against the order of the Division Bench by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution.
The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated April 27, 1,964, held that the retirement of the second respondent at the age of 55 was unjustified as the second respondent was number bound by the provision in the standing orders of 1952 or of 1961 fixing the age of retirement at 55 as he was employed in the companycern in 1546, and directed reinstatement of the second respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
On August 11, 1962, respondent No.
3, the Union of the employees of the appellant, submitted a charter of demands.
On September 17, 1956, the Central Act 20 of 1946 was amended by the Act 36 of 1956.
The Government of West Bengal, by its order dated January 29, 1963, made a reference to the first respondent of the industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen represented by the third respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mathew, J. The appellant, a companypany incorporated under the Comapanies Act, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta praying for the issue of a writ or an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta, directing the reinstatement of Ganapati Sontra, the second respondent, in the service of the appellant.
At the time, there was numberrule prescribing the age of retirement of the workmen of the companypany.
He further held that as the second respondent had already attained the age of 58 years, there was numberquestion of his reinstatement but that the appellant should pay the 2nd respondent the salary for the period between the date when he was actually made to retire and the date when he attained the age of 58.
The second respondent was employed by the appellant in the year 1946 as a clerk in its Service Department.
A single judge of the High Court, following the decision of this Court in Guest Keen Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others 1 held that the provision as regards the age of retirement in the standing orders would number bind the 2nd respondent as he was employed prior to the companying into force of the standing orders and dismissed the writ petition.
The appellant filed an appeal before a Division Bench of that Court.
1462 of 1968.
2 and 3.
The Standing orders in the appellant companypany were modified on May 30, 1961, but the provision regarding the age of superannuation remained unchanged.
The appeal was also dismissed.
A learned judge of that Court dismissed the writ petition.
The second question referred, which alone is material for our purpose was Is the superannuation of Shri Ganapati Santra justified ?
