LexDUNLOP INDIA LIMLTED versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DUNLOP L."miA LINI'IED
v.
'OIEIR WORKMEN
March 10, 1972
1-41
u-
, [C. A. V AlDIALlNOAM AND G. K. Mrrna, J1.]
Industrial Dlsput~Retlre!"ent age-flfllwstriaJ Tribunal-Jurisdlai
to (iz retlrenunf age-Worlcmi111 II bound by agree~nt b7 Unlo
{ h'0 1r"
· hf is M,l a member. ·
n o w IC
In. 1955 the appe~lant Company framed and brought into fon:o Staod-
il!a Orders unde.t wh1ch a sta.l! efD:P!~e was to mire at the ap of ss.
C
1be Compaoy tn 1.956, entered mto an a~Veemet~t with its workmen
represented by the union, of wbic;b all the workmen of the company ~re
members. The a~ment, among other thing,, fixed the retirement agc-
a.t" 55. Notwithstanding this agreement the Compiny iswed a Circular
in 1960 to the effect that the manaa:ement will not ~U~uirc any employee-
to retire before attaining the age of 58 years. In 1961, tho Oompany·
entered into an ~nt
wiltt one of the three uniOilS of the workmen
~dina the (:Ofldllions of M~pioyment. Tbo aereement provided that
D
an employee shall' relire at the ~
of 58. Otl the expiry of· this a~
mtAt a. fClllh aaeeme11t was- eGioeled into. with tho.same unioo In 1966.
0t1 one of~ WOI'kmen·auaining.SS.years the Co~y passed an order
retirina the workman. An iAdu&uilll dispute "'r.U raised and it wu referred
to ~
Tribunal for adjlldieatioo.
Tho Tribunal recorded. tho tlndi.oga tlw wb£n the ~kman joillrJ! the
E
lf!n'ice of' the Coolpany in 1944 tbc:re were no SbndiD& Orders,
,__or ·
.
ard'
th
r etirement· chat tbou&h the wot .. n•ll
reauJauons rea
tng
e age 0
rtbe Co.., did not sjvt. dl'ej;l to
-
bound by tho 19S6 agreement
·!kJd . the agrtemaJt; that the-
die 11111 of• retirement of. 55. yean as :;:;:; . tolll with a Union of wbich
1961 and. 1966. aa:rcaneota were en ~
be was not bound by
the workmaa was not a rru::f!lbtr and.
ision of· this ():)urt in Guut
the a~U"tement: and that in Vt~ o!- the doc
S.CIL 348 the workman
Keen, William.r Ltd• v, P •. 1: 5_ttrlt~t !19.~1 1 tho age of 60. yean. 011
F
waa entitled &o bQ in eerwoe till· hla attanuna · ·0
tho workman ill~
these fiadini!O' the Tribun&l· bcld tho ._ord~ ;::: :nd contin\10 in stSVttC'
and dcdara<l thllt bo. was enlltled t& "" re:tDS
till he attained the a~e (If 60 years.
.L. (') the trlbunaf
't was contended ...,.t I
6 bould
In the appeal by speclill lellve I
d by the agreement of l9S s
bavin.~t hekl.that tho workmao was =d to redre at the age of S~~
lv.ye held th&l. the. workman was
tbe StandiPI ()nlers
.
G
as provided tbetein or. at.· any. rJ.Ie. '-$ ~
the ()lCnpanfs order redrln~
in !9S5 and In this vi~ it.shoulth d ~~al should have held tbebad7o~
the workman at S8 le2al: (il)
e
.
especiall.Y as be
e
th
of 1961 and 1966. bind.ina M !me~~
and (iii) in ao~e=~u:
the various OlheT bcneflts c:oo ~ directioo to tho companY
tribunal had no Jurisdic:tioo. ~
a~ve a f ·60 rut'·
.
the \l(orkman till be attained tho aao 0
"b •• b-~ 10 ~.CQIII!rmed
"al Ttl \IOU au
'
B
HELD • That the Award oC the InduStn
and the apPul diJmi~
.
f the companY In l{:j
(l) ThoU&h the workman entered the rr::;rb; tho coD'IPIDY In
'
he Is bound by the StaJ!dina ~
: /
I I .
: I
. I
. I
I
i
I!
I
/
"742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.ll.
in as much as he was a workman and employed at the time when the
Standing Orders were certified.
[748 Hl
Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sri Alladin and others, [1970] 1 ·
S.C.R. 808; Guest Keen Williams Private Ltd. v. P. I. Sterling and others,
''[19601 1 S.C.R. 348; Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen &: Co. v. Ketrlewell
Bullen &: Co, Ltd., [i964] 2 L.L.J. 146 and Salent Erode Electricity Distri-
bution Company Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Em-
ployed Union,. [19661 2 S.C.R. 498, referred to.
The 1956 agreement was a valid agreement and as rightly held by
the Tribunal it was bindin~ on the concerned workman.
·
But, the Tribunal's finding that the agreement of 1956 had not been
~iven effect to is justified.
From the 1960 circular and other circum-
. stances it is clear that the management decided not to retire any employee
before attaining the age of 58 years though the age of retir~ment was
55 years under the Standing Orlers framed in 1955 and under the agree-
ment o·f 1956. [749 EJ
The Dunlop Rubber Co. (lnd1'a) Ltd. v, Workmen and Others, [1960]
2 S.C.R. 51 , referred to.
(ii) The agreements of 1961 and 1966 will bind only such of the
staff employees as were members of the Union Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.