This was made companypulsory to all the PSUs.
Since the financial companydition of the appellant PSU was deteriorating daybyday, it had become difficult for them to give effect to the aforesaid decision direction.
These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.
The respondents Trade Unions felt aggrieved and carried the matter in intra companyrt appeal WA Nos.
The appellant PSU felt aggrieved and filed intra companyrt appeals.
The respondents Trade Unions then carried the issue in intra companyrt appeals No.1565, 1595, 2112 2113/2003 before the Division Bench.
The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondents herein respondent Nos.110 are the writ petitioners of the writ petitions, out of which these appeals arise.
1565,1595, 2112 2113/2003 before the Division Bench.
See Paras 11 and 12 of the order of the Single Judge .
So far as the other reference No.4/2005 was companycerned, it was accordingly disposed of by award dated 02.08.2008 on the same lines.
The Single Judge by order dated 21.08.2012 allowed the writ petitions and quashed the awards dated 02.07.2008 and 02.08.2008 of the Labour Court.
The Division Bench by impugned order dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of the present appeals by the appellant PSU after obtaining the special leave to appeal from this Court.
The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 18.12.2003.
It was held that since the question referred to the Labour Court in the reference was already dealt with in the earlier round of litigation by the High Court and the Supreme Court and the same having attained finality companysequent upon the dismissal of the SLPs by this Court by order dated 23.04.2004, the reference made by the State was barred by the principle of res judicata.
The Trade Unions respondents then filed special leave to appeals in this Court and by order dated 23.04.2004, this Court dismissed the SLPs and affirmed the order of the Division Bench.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submissions, we are inclined to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned order restore the awards dated 02.07.2008 and 02.08.2008 of the Labour Court.
This gave rise to filing of the original petitions by the respondents Trade Unions in the Kerala High Court OP Nos.14598, 14599 14976/2003 challenging therein the legality and companyrectness of the order dated 29.04.2003.
On 19.05.1998, the Central Government issued a direction to all the Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government and directed them to increase the age of superannuation upto below boardlevel employees from 58 years to 60 years.
The Trade Unions respondents felt aggrieved and filed special leave petitions CC Nos.3653 3655/2004 in this Court.
On 23.01.1978, a Memorandum of Settlement was executed between appellant No.1 PSU and respondent Nos.1 to 10, i.e., Trade Unions wherein it was inter alia agreed between the parties that the existing superannuation age of 60 years will remain unchanged in respect of all the workers working in the appellants Undertaking at Udyogamandal Division, Head Office including those who are on the rolls of the Undertaking as on the date of settlement.
It was also agreed that those who are recruited on and after Memorandum of Settlement in question shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years.
It was held that the reference made by the State to the Labour Court was number barred by res judicata.
These writ petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge on merits by order dated 12.08.2003.
By letters dated 02.09.1999 and 11.07.2001, the Central Government directed the appellant PSU to take several measures to improve their financial performance and also undertake the work of rationalization of their workers and bring it to a manageable level.
Appellant No.1 accordingly ensured its companypliance and made it applicable to their employees by a resolution dated 27.05.1998.
By order dated 18.12.2003, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order of the Single Judge.
Respondent Nos.1 to 10 are the Trade Unions of the workers working in the manufacturing unit of appellant No.1 at the relevant time.
The Trade Unions employees respondents herein felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions Nos.33938/2008 and 2556/2009 in the High Court of Kerala against the award dated 02.07.2008.
The Labour Court, by award dated 02.07.2008 answered the reference No.10/2004 against the Trade Unions and in favour of the appellant PSU .
The appellant PSU , therefore, brought this fact to the numberice of the Central Government.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
In companypliance with the letter dated 25.04.2003 of the Central Government, the appellant PSU issued an order dated 29.04.2003 to reduce the retirement age of pre1978 employees from 60 years to 58 years.
After extensive deliberations and making several efforts for reducing the financial losses, the Central Government eventually by letter dated 25.04.2003 directed the appellant PSU to change the retirement age of pre1978 employees from 60 years to 58 years.
Signature Not Verified These appeals are directed against the final Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.04.11 171757 IST Reason judgment and order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos.1820 and 1824 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the judgment dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. Nos.33938/2008 and 2556 of 2009.
It has a factory at Travancore in the State of Kerala.
Appellant No.1 is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various kinds of fertilizers and chemicals.
