LexAVERY INDIA LIMITED versus THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
668 A VERY INDIA LIMITED v. THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL May 5, 1972 (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] Labour Law-Standing Orders .fixing age of retire1nent of ll'Ork1;1en at 55 years-Workn1en e111p/oyed he/ore introduction of standing orders whether covered by age of retirement so fixed-Industrial E111plovment (Sta11ding Orders) Act 20 ·of 1946. · The second respondent was employed by the appellant company in the year 1946 in its Service Department. At the time there was D'J rule prescribing the age of retirement of the \vorkmen of the company. In November 1951 the appellant introduced otanding orders under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 20 of 1946, by which the age of superannuation of the workmen was fixed at 55. On November 27, 1961 the appellant issued a notice to the second re .. pendent informing him that he was due to retire on August 31. 1962 as he would be attaining the age of 55 >Jn that date, On Augu·.r 11, 1962 the Union of the employees of the appellant submitted a d,harter oi demands one of which was that the age of retirement of the workmen should be raised from 55 "J 58 years. The second respondent asked the appellant to postpone a final decision as to his retirement because of the industrial dispute raised by the Union. The appellant ho\vever retired the second res- pondent Qn September I, 1962. Jn January 1963 the Government of West Bengal referred the di pute between the appellant and its workmen to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal by its award dated April 27, 1964 held that the retirement of the second respond•,nt at the age of 55 was unjustified as the second respondent \vas not bour J by the prov'isions of the standing crders fixing the age of retirement at 55 '" he was employed before the said orders vlere passcrl. The Tribunal also held "that the age of retire- ment of •all categories of workmen should he niised fron1 55- to 5S and that standing order.; '>'\1uld stand modified accordingly" TI10 appellant company filed a writ petifon in the High Court challenging the validity of the award in , o far as it directed the reinstatement of the second res- pondent. A single Judge of the High Court following the decision of this Court in Guest Keen WiUia111s held that the pro.Jvision ias regards the age of retirement in the standin~ orders would not bind the sedond respondent. He further held that as the second re,pondent had already attained th' age of 58 years there \\'as no question of his reinstatement but that he sl>:ruld be paid the s3lary for the period between the date when he was made to retire and the date when he actually attained the age of 58. The Division Bench upheld the order of the single Judge. The company appealed to this Court AllowLrg the appeal, HELD: (i) The view of the High Court that the pro..s10n in the standing -orders regarding retirement age could not bind the workmen who were employed in the establishment prior to the coming into force of the standin~ orders could not stand in the light of the decisions of this Court. [671 GJ Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Shri Alkdin, [1970] I S.C.R. ~08. Salem Erode Electricit,v Distribution Company Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electri- cily Distribution Co. Ltd. Employees' Union, [1966] 2 S.C.R. 498 ant A ll c D E '" .,_- r F • ' I H .•: 1 \ J: A c D AVERY LTD. v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (Mathew, J.) 669 llnitl'd Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Allahabad v. T.N. Chatterjee, C.A. >.:o. 1734 of 1967 decided on 13-3-1972. referred to. (ii) It was clear from the award that the Tribunal did not order the r;:in~tatcnlent of the Eecond respondent on the ground that he wa~ entitled to 1he benefit of the enhanced retirement age confcrrcJ on all categorie·s (~f \Vorkmen 'in the establishment ·by the aY.rard. The only ground on \\ hi·.::h the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement \\'as that the se:.:ond respondent "·as employed in the concern prior to the con1ir.g into force of the stand ... i11g order5 and therefore, the provision in the st:tnding orders fixing the 11g·; of retirement at 55 yt'ars did not bind hir.i in the light of the dec-illion of this Court in Guest Kt'en Willia1ns. The second respondent did not suµpon the award in rr'spi::ct of. his reinstatem'.:.'!nt in the counter-affidavit :tlkd hy hi1n in the Hig!1 Court in answer to th:: v.irit p~tition ,of the Jpp.:J!·.:u1t on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.