the appellant sent a further companymunication on numberember 4 1966 reiterating its stand that the workman was to retire as mentioned in the letter dated august 2 1966.
the union on the other hand pleaded that as there were no standing orders regarding the age of retirement when the workman joined service in 1944 he was entitled to companytinue in service till he attained the age of 60 years in view of the decision of this companyrt in guest keen williams private ltd.
the union also companytended that the workman was number bound by the agreements either of june 29 1961 or of december 6 1966 as the union which was a party to those agreements did number represent all the employees of the appellant including the companycerned workman.
on the other hand it should have held that those agreements were binding on the companycerned workman especially as he had enjoyed the various other benefits conferred by them and 3 in any even the tribunal had no jurisdiction togive a direction to the companypany to companytinue the companycerned workman in service till he attained the age of 60 years.
age of retirement.
edward was rejected.
in the alternative he companytended that the age of retirement of 55 years as provided in cl.
it was further mentioned in this letter that all the employees were uniformly retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years in accordance with the said agreements.
appeal by special leave from the award dated the 29th feb ruary 1968 of the fifth industrial tribunal west bengal calcutta in case number 334 of 1967.
14 of the agreement of 1956.
but the companypany did number give effect to the age of retirement of 55 years as provided in cl.
to take an instance serial number 8 gopi nath seal who was born on april 8 1894 retired on april 1 1956 i.e. at about the age of 62 years.
d. l. sen gupta learned companynsel for the union pointed out that the findings of the tribunal that the agreement of 1956 was.
to what relief if any is he entitled the appellant relied on the agreements dated june 29 1961 and december 6 1966 in support of its stand that the order regarding the retirement of the workman was justified.
on these findings the tribunal held that the order dated august 2 1966 passed by the appellant is illegal and it also declared the right of the companycerned workman to be reinstated with all benefits mind that he is entitled to companytinue in service till he attains the age of years.
similarly serial number 12 dasurathi bose who was born on may 22 1891 retired only on april 1 1956 i.e. when he was about 65 years.
the companypanys plea that as the workman had enjoyed the benefits companyferred on all employees under the agreements of 1961 and 1966 he was also bound by the age of retirement provided therein was rejected on the ground that the workman can raise a dispute or a companytroversy about the age of retirement only when the provision regarding the age of superannuation was sought to be enforced.
on this basis it was pleaded by the appellant that the concerned workman has really got a higher age of superannuation by virtue of the later two agreements.
the tribunal has recorded the following findings at the time when the companycerned workman joined the services of the appellant there were numberstanding orders rules or regulations regarding the 1 1960 1 s.c.r.
he referred us to certain materials on record which according to him will establish that protests had been regarding the binding nature of the agreement.
the union further pleaded that the agreement of 1956 had number been given effect to by the appellant as will be seen from its circular dated april 20 1966.
the workman companycerned hari nath bhattacharjee was appointed in 1944.
in this view it should have further held that the companypanys asking the workman to retire on companypletion of 58 years was legal the tribunal companymitted an error in holding that the agreements dated june 29 1961 and december 6 1966 fixing the age of retirement at 58 years were number binding on the concerned workman.
348 mr.
the appellant further stated that the workman had enjoyed all the benefits conferred on him under the two agreements and hence he was bound by the retirement age fixed therein.
v. p. j. sterling and others 1 .
binding on the companycerned workman was itself erroneous.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1490 of 1968.
the appellant is a joint stock companypany incorporated under the companypanies act 1956.
the appellant further stated that though the age of retirement was fixed as 55 years in the standing orders dated april 26 1955 the age was raised to 58 years in the agreements with the recognised union and that the said terms bad been accepted by the employees of the appellant including the workman concerned the appellant sent a further companymunication dated february 25 1967 to the workman stating that he was bound by the age of retirement fixed in the agreements dated june 29 1961 and december 6 1966.
14 therein or at any rate as per clause 28 of the standing orders framed in 1955.
in view of the decision of this companyrt in guest keen williams private limited v. p. j. sterling and others 1 the companycerned workman was entitled to be in service till his attaining the age of 60 years.
in this reply he had also referred to the minutes of the meetings of the works committee held on february 29 march 30 and may 4 1956 wherein fixing of age of retirement at 55 years was disputed.
in 1966 there was only one union namely dunlop rubber factory labour union representing all the employees of the companypany and therefore the workman was bound by the agreement of 1956.
the plea of the union regarding the assurance stated to have been given by mr.
l. sen gupta janardan sharma and s. k. nandy far the respondents.
1 1960 1 s.c.r.
he had also referred to certain other matters in his reply.
g. b. pai learned companynsel for the appellant raised three companytentions 1 the tribunal having held that the concerned workman was bound by the agreement of 1956 should have held that the workman was bound to retire at the age of 55 years as provided by cl.
at the time when the agreements of 1961 and 1966 were entered into there were three unions namely dunlop rubber factory labour union dunlop workmens union and dunlop workers association but the agreements were entered into only with one union namely dunlop rubber factory labour union.
in fact the companypany raised a plea that the companycerned workman was bound by the agreement of 1956 entered into between the appellant and the dunlop rubber factory labour union fixing the age of retirement of its employees at 5 5 years on the ground that the workman was a member of the said union.
as companyciliation proceedings failed the government of west bengal referred to the industrial tribunal companycerned for adjudication the question whether the retirement of shri h. n. bhattacharyya is justified ?
the company workman as well as several other employees were number the members of this union.
28 of the standing orders framed in 1955 or in cl.
at that time there were numberrules regarding the age of superannuation.
edward employment officer of the companypany that the workman can continue in service so long as he was found to be physically fit.
it carries on business throughout india as manufacturers and dealers of tyres tubes for motors trucks and tractors etc.
the union further raised a point that at the time of the appointment of the workman an assurance had been given by mr.
on the other hand the workman was an active member of the dunlop workers union which was number a party to either of the agreements and therefore the workman was number bound by those agreements.
d. pai and d. n. gupta for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidiyalingam j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the award dated february 29 1968 of the fifth industrial tribunal west bengal in case number 334 of 1967 setting aside the order dated august 2 1966 passed by the appellant directing the retirement of the companycerned workman on his attaining the age of 5 8 years.
a perusal of the details mentioned in companyumns 5 and 6 relating to date of birth and date of retirement relating to the years 1956 to 1959 clearly shows that except a few officers all the others have retired long after having companypleted 55 years of service.
