GUEST, KEEN, WILLIAMS PRIVATE LTD. versus P. J. STERLING AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 15-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
r959 
pro~ts were clearly agricultural income being actually 
M•h•••i•dhir•i derived from land. The answer to the question by 
Sir Kameshwar the High Court was thus correct. 
Singh 
The result is that the appeal must fa.ii, and it is 
v. 
accordingly dismissed with costs. 
The Slate of Bihar 
· 
-
Appeal dismissed. 
Hidayalullah ]. 
I959 
Mayz5. 
GUEST, KEEN, WILLIAMS PRIVATE LTD. 
v. 
P. J. STERLING AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Fixation of age of superannuation of 
employees-If a question of law-Standing order, if open to modifica-
tion-Principle of acquiescence 
and 
estoppel-Applicability-
I ndustrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, I950 (48 of Ig50). 
s. 7(I)(a)-Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)' Act, Ig46 
(XX of Ig46), s. 7. 
The appellant company in enforcement of a standing order, 
framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 
r946 (XX of r946), against which the respondent had preferred 
no appeal, compulsorily retired 47 of its workmen at the age of 55. 
A dispute was raised by the workmen as to the validity of such 
retirement and the three questions referred to the Tribunal for 
adjudication were, (r) whether f"!rced retirement of workmen at 
55 was justified, (2) what relief were the workmen entitled to on 
retirement and (3) supposing the forced retirement of the work-
men in question was justified, to what relief would they be 
entitled. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that the age 
of superannuation fixed by the standing order should apply only 
to new entrants and in the case of old ones the age should be 
sixty with option to them to continue even thereafter. The 
Labour Appellate Tribunal on appeal, in reversal of the findings 
of the Industrial Tribunal, held that the Standing Order in 
question could not bar adjudication as to the propriety of the 
system of forced retirement, that in view of the admitted fact 
that there was no fixed age of retirement in the appellant's 
concern before the Standing Order, it could not be enforced 
against workmen recruited prior to it and by its award directed 
that the workmen who had been compulsorily retired should be 
reinstated on refunding what they had received in the shape of 
gratuity and Provident Fund dues. It was urged by way of 
preliminary objections on behalf of the appellant that (r) the 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
349 
appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal was incompetent as no 
substantial question of law was involved in it, and (2) that the 
reference to adjudication was itself bad and the delay in raising 
the present dispute showed that the respondent had acquiesced in 
the relevant standing order. 
Held, that the objections must fail. 
The question as to what should be the proper age of super-
annuation for industrial workers was one of general importance 
as it affected a large number of employees and involved questions 
of industrial policy and principle, so it was a substantial question 
of law under s. 7(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate 
Tribunal) Act, 1950. 
A standing order, even though binding as between the 
employer and the employees under s. 7 of the Industrial Employ-
ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, was open to modification even 
under the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 1956, in an 
industrial dispute raised by the workmen for that purpose and as 
such the present reference, questioning the propriety and validity 
of the system of forced retirement as introduced by the appellant 
must be decided on merits. 
Mettur Industries Ltd. v. Varma and Others (1958) II L.L.J. 
326 and Bharat Starch and Chemicals Ltd. v. The Industrial 
Tribunal, Punjab, (1958) II L.L.J. 243, referred to. 
The delay, inevitable in raising an industrial dispute, could 
be no ground in the instant case for an inference that the respon-
dent had acquiesced in the relevant standing order. In industrial 
disputes legal technicalities should be avoided as far as it was 
reasonably possible to do so and industrial tribunals should be 
cautious in applying the principle of acquiescence and estoppel in 
the adjudication of such disputes. 
Held, further, that it was evident in the instant case that it 
was unfair to fix the age of superannuation of previous employees 
by a subsequent standing order which should apply in that matter 
only to future entrants. In view of the fact however, that the 
previou

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