BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK PARISHAD AND OTHERS versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 12-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK 
PARISHAD AND OTHERS 
v. 
-.('-
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS 
JULY 12, 1990 
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948: Sections 5 
and 7 and Clause 20 of the Standing Orders-Modification of Standing 
Order providing for upward revision of age of superannuation-
Whether valid. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 9A, 12 and 18--'Settle-
ment'-Arrived at in conciliation proceedings-Binding nature of 
The appellants are two different trade unions of Barauni Refinery 
D 
of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The IOCL is 
comprised essentially of two divisions: (1) Marketing Division, and (2) 
E 
- Refinery and Pipe Lines Division. The age ofsuperannuation orthe staff 
in the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas for the Refinery and 
Pipe Lines Division it was iixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the 
Standing Orders concerning Barauni Refinery. 
In December 1981, 14 recognised Unions representing the 
employees of the IOCL working in different reimeries and pipe lines 
divisions submitted a charter of demands. By clause 18 of this charter 
the superannuation age was sought to he enhanced to 60 years. A siini-
lar charter of demands was separately submitted by the Barauni 
F 
Telshodhak Mazdoor Union. 
As a result of discussions a general settlement wru. . ~ally 
arrived at by and between the parties on May 24, 1983. Subsequently, a 
separate Memorandum of Settlement dated 4th August, 1983 concern-
ing Barauni Reimery was signed by the parties under sections 12(3) and 
G 
18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in conciliation prpceedings. 
Both the general settlement and the special settlement concerning 
Barauni Refinery were to remain in force till 30th April, 1986. Despite 
the specific demand made in the two charters of demand for the upward 
revision of the age of superannuation, no specific provision was made in 
_,)-
that behalf either in the general settlement or in the special settlement. 
H 
On the contrary, clause 19 of both the settlements provided that the 
282 
) 
--
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL 
283 
terms and conditions of service which were not changed under the settle-
~ents shall remain unchanged and operative during the period of settle-
ment, further, clanse 21 did not permit raising of any demand throwing 
an additional burden on the corporation dnring that period. 
Later, the Petroleum and Chemical Mamoor Union served notice 
on the Regional LabollJ' Commissioner (Central) under section 10(2) of 
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948 for modifica-
. tion of clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of Barauni Refinery 
~for raising the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. This 
demand was based on the averment that the nature of work performed 
by the workmen in the Refmery and Pipe Lines Division and their pay-
scales were identical to the staff members of the Marketing Division. 
The Regional .Labour Commissioner allowed the application for 
-
~odification of clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders. The Appel-
late Authority dismissed the appeal of the Corporation, but at the same 
time directed a slight modification in clause 20 of the Standing Orders. 
The IOCL preferred a writ petition in the High Court for quashing 
the orders of the Regional Labour Commissioner as well as the Appellate 
Authority. On the other hand, the Union, feeling aggrieved by the order 
of the Appellate Authority, preferred a writ petition against that order. 
--
The High Court inter alia held that the settlement arrived at in the 
conciliation proceedings was binding on the workmen, and as clause 19 
of the settlement kept the service conditions which were not changed .in 
tact and clause 21 of the settlement did not permit raising of any 
demand throwing an additional burden on the Corporation, it was not 
permissible to modify the certified Standing Orders by an amendment, 
as that would alter the service conditions and increase the fmancial 
, 
' )- burden on the management. 
Dismissing the appeals by the two trade unions this Court, 
HELD: ( 1) The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 
1948 was enacted to define with sufficient precision the conditions of 
employment for workers employed in industrial establishments and to 
make the same known to them. [289B] 
(2) According to sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 18 of the 
Industrial Disput

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.