LexG.M.TALANG AND OTHERS versus SHAW WALLACE AND CO. AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 March.24 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS G. M. TALANG AND OTHERS v. SHAW WALLACE AND CO. AND ANR [1964] [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Age of Retirement_.:.Trend in Bombay Region-Conclusion in earlier decision recorded by Supreme Court-Enquiry as to accuracy thereaf-lndustri.al Tribunal- Propriety. Shortly after the extension of the age of retirement from 55 to 58 subject to the employee passing a medical examination at 55 in the respondent-company's Head Office at Calcutta, their workmen at Bombay branch raised an industrial dispute claiming the extension of their age of retirement from 55 to 60. The dis- pute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The company resisted the claim but was agreeable to introduce similar provi- sions as introduced at Calcutta. The difficulty in accepting the company's case was the conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court in its earlier decisions that the trend in Bombay region was to fix the age at 60. So the Tribunal considered it to be its duty to enquire whether the conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court was accurate and ultimately persuaded itself to hold that no such trend was established in fact, and directed that the age of retirement should be 58. Held: (i) After careful consideration of all the materials placed on this record. there was nothing to justify any doubt about the correctness of what was said on the earlier occasion by this Court. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in dealing with this aspect of the problem is not very commendable and its present conclusion that what was said by itself on an earlier occasion and was confirmed by this Court in appeal, was in fact inaccurate, is on the whole unsound. What. the Tribunal has failed to notice is that instances which ,may justify a revision of the judicial opinion expressed on an earlier occasion about a particular trend must be strong and unambiguous and they must speak for the period both before and more particularly after the previous finding had been recorded in the mat1:€r. (ii) The information furnished by the several documents on this record clearly show a consistent trend in the Bombay region · to fix the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff at 60. Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 349 and Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [1960] 2 S.C.R. 51, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 513 of 1963. Appeal by special leave frornthe Award dated De- cember 1961 of the Maharashtra Industrial Tribunal in Re- ference (l.T.) No. 48 of 1961. S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-Genera/, c: L. Dudhia, K. T. Sule, Atiqur Rahman and K. L. Hathi, for the appel~ I ants. • _, 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 425 M. C. Setalvad, N. V. Phadke, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. 1964 Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent No. 1. G.M. Talang and Ora. March 24, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli-shaw wal'k...and vered by Co. and .dnr. DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal arises out of an industrial -dispute as regards the age of retirement. The first respondent, Shaw Wallace & Co., was incorporated in January, 1946 as a Private Limited Company to take over the business of the partnership firm of the Shaw Wallace & Co., which had been doing business in India for about 60 years. In July, 1947 the Private Limited Company was converted into a Public Limited Company. The Head Office of the Company is at Calcutta. It has Branches in Bombay, Delhi and _\1adras. The general practice of the Company both at the Head Office and the Branch Offices appears to have been to retire its employees at the age of 55 though in certain cases the Company in its discretion permitted an employee to continue beyond that age. In September, 1959 an agreement was entered into between the Company and its employees at Calcutta under which the age of retirement was extended to 58 years subject to the employees passing a medical examination on reaching the age of 55. Shortly after this the Company's employees at Bombay raised a dispute regarding their retirement age. They claimed , that no workman should be retired from se1vicc before he bad completed 60 years of age. This dispute was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra. Before the Tribunal the Company resisted the workmen's claim but submitted that it was agreeable to introduce for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.