Seven were allowed extention of service up to March 31, 1955, while the remaining 47 who were over the age of 55 were retired with effect from May 31, 1954, after giving each one of them a numberice in that behalf on May 11, 1954.
24 9 53 P.3261.
1, dt.
that case was in regard to the termination of Shri Uma Prasanna Bhattacharjee and this dispute was settled in favour of the employee.
3 has been referred to the tribunal, The said 47 workmen were paid all the emoluments due to them in respect of Provident Fund companytributions made by the appellant in respect of them and by themselves they were also paid gratuities at the rate of 15 days pay for each year of their service prior to their becoming the members of the Provident Fund.
The companyrectness of this decision is challenged by the appellant by its present appeal.
16 9 1954, P. 3111.
It observed that the respondent had given numberconvincing reason why the age limit of retirement should by fixed number at 55 but at 60 years as alleged by it and it referred to the fact that in the case of a dispute between the appellant and its head office staff the retirement age had been fixed at 55 years by companysent in proceedings before the Second Industrial Tribunal on September 24, 1953.
C 52 of 1956, arising out of the Award dated January 7, 1956, of the Court of Judge, Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
Reference was also made to the award in the Calcutta Exchange Gazette and Daily Advertiser And One of their employees 1 where the age of superannuation had been similarly fixed at 55.
Even so the respondent raised a dispute about the companypulsory retirement of the said workmen and in fact challenged the validity of the relevant standing order itself.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No.
403 of 1957.
The appellant is a companypany incorporated with limited liability under the Indian Companies Act.
Besides they were given valuable presents by the appellant in appreciation of their services and in a large number of cases the appellant offered employ ment to the sons or other relatives of the said work men.
It is after this dispute was referred to the tribunal for adjudication that the present proceedings companymenced.
In pursuance of this standing order the appellant examined the cases of 56 of its employees who according to their service records appeared to have attained the age of superannuation.
Its business is engineering and manufacturing of engineering products.
The objection, raised by two workmen about the companyrectness of the age shown in their service records was examined and ultimately upheld their records were accordingly companyrected on the strength of the certificates granted to them by the Civil Surgeon, Howrah.
It carries on business at 41, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta.
Awards made by the Tribunals for quarter ending March 1949, P. 116 at P.131.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
These three questions were answered substantially in favour of the appellant by the tribunal but on appeal by the respondent, the Labour Appellate Tribunal has reversed the findings of the tribunal and has substantially answered the questions in favour of the respondent.
The standing order in regard to retirement of the appellants employees provides that workmen shall retire from the service of the companypany on reaching the age of 55 years but the companypany may at its sole discretion offer an extension of service beyond this age to anybody.
On December 19, 1953, the certifying officer duly certified the said orders after giving the trade unions of the appellants workmen an opportunity to be heard and after companysidering their objections.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, D. L. Sen Gupta and Dipak Datta Choudhri, for respondentsNos.
Three questions were the subject matter of the reference 1 If the system of forced retirement of workmen at the age of 55 as introduced by the management in May 1954 is justified ?
To what relief including reinstatement and or companypensation are they entitled ?
The Calcutta Gazette, Pt.
Against the said orders numberappeal was preferred by the respondent, and so they became final and operative as companyditions of service between the parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADAR J. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd., hereafter called the appellant and its workmen represented by Guest, Keen, Williams Staff Association hereafter called the respondent which was referred for adjudication to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta, by the Government of West Bengal on December 29, 1954.
of West Bengal, Labour Deptt.,
After the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 Act 20 of 1946 hereafter called the Act came into force on April 23, 1946, the appellant submitted its draft standing orders for certification to the certifying officer.
and 3 If the forced retirement of the workmen named in the attached list is justified ?
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and N. Kripal, for the appellant.
As we have alaeady pointed out this question has been companysidered by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case of the Jamadoba Colliery 1 and the view expressed therein has been followed by the present Labour Appellate Tribunal.
May 15.
2 To What relief the workmen are entitled on retirement ?
