JAIPUR UDYOG LTD versus CEMENT WORK KARMACHARI SANGH, SAHU NAGAR.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 28-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Set Aside

Judgment (excerpt)

296 
JAIPUR UDYOG LTD. 
v. 
CEMENT WORK 
1KARMACHARI SANGH, SAHU 
NAGAR. 
Ja11uary 28, 1972 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, I. D. DUA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
. Industrial Disputes Act-S. 10(1) (d)-Tribunal cannot go beyond the 
scope of reference. 
The appellant, a public Limited Company, had a Cement Factory and 
at '3. distance, :;i. limestone quarry. 
It had two standing orders for the 
workman employed in the factoiry and in the quarries. 
Upto April, 1967, 
both sets of standing orders provided fo< superannuation of the workmen 
at the age of 55 with a stipulation for extension upto 60 years if a 
workman was found fit to work. After a dispute at the Cement Factory, 
a settlement was arrived at by which it was agreed that the standing order 
applicable to the Cement Factory be amended by raising the age of super-
annuation from 55 t..:> 58 without making any provision for further exten~ 
sion S.nd accordingly, the amendment was made. Nothing was, however, 
done with regard to the superannuation age of the employees at the quarry. 
On April 3, 1968, the appellant intimated the incline driver at the 
quarry that he had reached the age of retirement on 3-4-68 and accord· 
ingly he was given notice of retirement in terms of the standing order. 
On April 30, 1968, the said workman wrote to the appellant that altbou&h 
service records showed him to be SS yean of age, his proper aao accord· 
ing to his borOICOpe, was about SO yean and so his service record• ahould 
be amended accordingly, but the appellant refuaed. 
The Union took up 
the cause of the worker and requested the Regional Labour Commilllioner 
to put the worker back to work .. On a reference under S. 10(1) (d) of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, the Triblinal took the view that the Cement 
Factory and the quarries were two units of the same eotablishment and 
so, there should be a uniform set of rules for the wo<kmeri of the Com-
pany as a whole. 
In the result, the Tribunal held that there could not 
be a lower age limit of superannuation for workmen at the quarry specially 
in view of the fact that workmen were admittedly transferred from one 
unit to the other. As a consequence, the Tribunal quashed lhe order of 
dismissal and direcied the reinstatement of the workman with full back 
wages. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
It was contended by the Company before this Court that the TribuD:ll 
was wrong 'in construing tho order of reference to include a dispute as 
to whether it was open to the C.Ompany to have two sets of standing 
G 
orders providing for different ages of superannuation. 
According to the 
appellant, the dispute between the parties w:is whether or not the Com-
pany was justified in Coming to the conclusion that the workman con· 
cemed had reached the age of 55 on April 3, 1968, and as such, was 
to be superannuated in terms of the standing orders. 
Setting aside the 
award, 
HELD : Tbe Tribunal had not taken care to examine what was the 
H 
·dispute between the parties when the government made the order of 
reference. 
No dispute was ever ~aised either by· the workman or the 
Union that the age of superannuation governing the _workman was not 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JAI~UR UDYOG LTD. V. CEMENT KARMACHARI SANGH 
297 
(Mitter, J.) 
55 years. The finding of the Tribunal that !he Company could not fix. 
a lower ·age limit of superannuation for the workman at the qU'lI'ries went-
beyond the scope of reference. 
The Tribunal never addressed itself to 
the point of view of the workman that his proper age was anly 50 and 
not 55; nor did it come to a finding that the true age of the workman:· 
being 50 years in 1968, ·there was no question of his superannuation in 
1hot year. [302 CJ 
The Sindhu Rese1tlement Corporation Lu/. vs. The Industrial Tribunal,. 
G11jarat & Ors. [1968] I S.C.R. 515 referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1166 of 
1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated December 19, 
1970 of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in 
Case No. CI'l:'-10 of 1968. 
M, C. Setalvad, K. K. Jain, C. N. Sharma, C. S. Patel and 
Bishamber Lal, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by · 
Mitter, J, 
This is an appeal by special leave from an award 
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan direct-
ing the reinstatement of one Bhisham Verma in the service of t..'ie· 
appellant with full back wages. 
· 
The_ facts are as foliows. 
The app

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