1717/87 absolute while dismissing CWP No.
The Petroleum and Chemical Mazdoor Union through its General Secretary, Ram Vinod Singh, served numberice on the Regional Labour Commissioner Central under Section 10 2 of the Standing Orders Act for modification of Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders of Barauni Refinery for raising the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years mainly on the ground that the staff members working in the Marketing Division superannuated on companypleting the age of 60 years.
After this general settlement was signed by the Management and the Union representatives a separate Memorandum of Settlement dated 4th August, 1983 was signed between the IOCL R P Division , Barauni Refinery, and their workmen represented by Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union, Barauni Refinery, under Sections 12 3 and 18 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in companyciliation proceedings initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Begusarai.
By a Joint letter dated 15th December, 1981, 14 recognised Unions representing the employees of the IOCL working in different refineries and pipe lines divisions submitted a charter of demands in terms of Clause 2.1.3 of the long term settlement dated 3rd December, 1979.
This newly formed companypany companyprised essentially of two divisions, namely, 1 Marketing Division, representing the staff, assets and business of Indian Oil Company, Limited and 2 Refinery and Pipe Lines Division, representing the staff, assets and oil refinery manufacturing of petroleum products of Indian Refinery, Limited.
The age of superannuation of the staff in the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas the age of superannuation for the Refinery and Pipe Lines Division was fixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the Standing Orders companycerning Barauni Refinery.
Between the 57th and 58th year Companys Medical Officer would companyduct the medical test and if the workman is found to be medically fit he shall be retained in service for a period of two more years beyond the age of 58 years i.e. upto 60 years.
It was also companytended by the said Union that the demand for the upward revision of the age of superannuation companyld number be pressed at the time of the settlement arrived at pursuant to the charter of demands because the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years under the relevant certified Standing Orders.
This general settlement was to remain in force from 1st May, 1982 to 30th April, 1986.
Clauses 19 and 21 of this settlement were verbatim reproduction of those in the general settlement dated 24th May, 1983 extracted hereinabove.
The Standing Orders companycerning the Barauni Refinery came into force on 5th December, 1964 as provided by Section 7 of the Standing Orders Act and apply to all workmen employed in the said industrial establishment.
Clauses 19 and 21 of this general settlement companycerning all the Refineries and Pipe Lines Divisions, inter alia provided as under The Corporation agrees that such terms and companyditions of service as well as amenities and allowances as are number changed under this settlement shall remain unchanged and operative during the period of the settlement.
CWP 3417/87 in the High Court of Delhi.
This demand was based on the averment that the nature of work performed by the workmen in the Refinery and Pipe Lines Division was identical to that performed by the staff members of the Marketing Division.
The Regional Labour Commissioner after hearing the rival parties allowed the application for modification of Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders.
The Union which had initiated the proceedings for modification of Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders also felt aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority and prefer red a writ petition No.
This settlement too was to remain in force from 1st May, 1982 to 30th April, 1986.
Against this order of 11th October, 1984, the IOCL preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 6 read with Section 10 3 of the Standing Orders Act.
While hearing these two writ petitions the High Court for umlauted two points for companysideration, namely, i Whether the Certifying Authority under the Standing Orders Act has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment of a Standing Order which fixes the age of retirement of the workmen as 58 years which is in companysonance with the model Standing Order and enhances the age of retirement to 60 years without first giving any finding whether it is practicable to give effect to the model Standing Order and ii Whether the settlement arrived at under Section 18 3 and Section 19 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the petitioner and the workmen represented by their recognised majority union and which settlement was in force when impugned orders were made, had put any bar on the rights of the workmen to approach the authorities under the said Act for seeking modification of the Standing Orders with regard to the fixation of the age of superannuation of the workmen.
It was, therefore, felt necessary that Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders applicable to Barauni Refinery of the IOCL should be got suitably modified to raise the age of retirement to 60 years.
These two appeals by two different Trade Unions of Barauni Refinery are directed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi which set aside the modification of Clause 20 of the Standing Orders certified under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 hereinafter called the Standing Orders Act .
A similar charter of demands was forwarded by the Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union to the General Manager, IOCL, Barauni Refinery, on 23rd December, 1981.
Clause 20 of the Standing Orders reads as under Every employee shall retire from service on companypleting the age of 58 years.
Extension for a maximum period of 5 years but number for more than one year at a time may be given at the discretion of the companypany provided the employee is certified to be fit by the Companys Medical Officer and provided further that the employee companycerned also companysents to such extension.
The workman should number, however, leave his place of duty without being relieved.
Clause 20 as modified by the Appellate Authority was worded as under Every workman shall generally retire on attaining the age of 58 years.
By Clause 18 of this charter of demands the superannuation age was sought to be enhanced to 60 years.
By his order he directed that Clause 20 should be modified as under Normally the age of retirement of workman of the Corporation is fixed at 60 years.
No numberice is required to be given by a workman of his intention to retire on superannuation or by the Management to the workman that he is due to reach the age of superannuation on certain date.
1717/87 in the High Court at Delhi for quashing the impugned order of the Certifying Officer dated 1lth October, 1984 and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 4th May, 1987.
It was, therefore, companytended that there was numbervalid reason for fixing different ages for retirement for the staff members working in the said two Divisions of IOCL.
It may here be mentioned that despite the specific demand made in the charter of demands for the upward revision of the ags of superannuation, numberspecific provision was made in that behalf either in the general settlement or in the special settlement companycerning Barauni Refinery.
The Unions agree that during the period of operation of this settlement, they shall number raise any demand having financial burden on the Corporation other than bonus provided that this Clause shall number affect the rights and obligations of the parties in regard to matters companyered under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Pursuant to the presentation of this charter of demands, meetings were held between the Management of IOCL R P Division and the recognised Unions of the said Division from time to time.
The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal directed a slight modification in Clause 20 of the Standing Orders.
The pay scales of the employees of the Refinery Division and Marketing Division were also identical.
On the companytrary Clause 19 of both the settlements provides that the terms and companyditions of service which are number changed under the Settlement shall remain unchanged and operative during the period of settlement.
The brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under Two companypanies, namely, the Indian Refinery, Limited and Indian Oil Company, Limited amalgamated in 1964 and a new Company known as Indian Oil Corporation, Limited IOCL was incorporated.
The writ petition filed by the IOCL was allowed while the other writ petition was dismissed.
As a result of discussions held at the said meetings as settlement was mutually arrived at by and between the parties on May 24, 1983.
The IOCL has refineries in different parts of the companyntry including one at Barauni.
Both these writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench and were disposed of by a companymon Judgment.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Authority the IOCL preferred a writ petition No.
3417/87 with numberorder as to companyts.
It is against this order that the Trade Unions have approached this Court.
