PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 19-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
507
PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED
v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
    (Civil Appeal Nos. 3997-3998 of 2018)
APRIL 19, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.9A – Change in conditions
of service – In 1998, due to financial crunch, Government decided
to enhance retirement age from 58 to 60 – Appellant-company
implemented the said decision of government –  However, since the
financial position of appellant-company did not improve, government
rolled back retirement age – Appellant-company restored the age of
retirement to 58 years – Industrial dispute – Industrial Tribunal
invalidated the action of appellant-company of rolling back the
age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years due to contravention of
r.9A which says prior notice must be given to employees by employer
which the employer intentionally omitted to give in the instant case
– High Court upheld the order of Industrial Tribunal – On appeal,
Held: s.9A is a provision in consonance with the Constitutional
mandate which assures the protection of principles of natural justice
i.e., no one shall be condemned unless heard – s.9A provides that
before changing either of the things as envisaged in the Fourth
Schedule, prior notice must be given to the employee – Eighth clause
of the Fourth Schedule  says “withdrawal of any customary
concession, privilege or change in usage” – The order of
enhancement of superannuation of the employees though temporary
in nature amounted to privilege to employees since it is a special
right granted to them – Therefore, any unilateral withdrawal of
such privilege amounts to contravention of s.9A of the Act and such
act of the employer is bad in the eyes of law – Right to work is a
vital right of every employee and it shall not be taken away without
giving reasonable opportunity of being heard otherwise it would
be an act of violation of the constitutional mandate – There is no
error in the order of High Court – Service law.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Fourth Schedule, eighth
clause – Eighth clause of the Fourth Schedule says “withdrawal of
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 507
507
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
any customary concession or privilege or change in usage” –  Terms
“privilege” –  Interpretation of – Held: The word “privilege” as
such is not defined in the Act – The Dictionary meaning of the word
“privilege” means a “special right, advantage or immunity granted
or available only to a particular person or ground” – In other words,
a particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person,
company, or class, beyond the common advantages of others – Order
of enhancement of superannuation of the employees would amount
to privilege to employees since it is a special right granted to them.
Service law:  Change in conditions of service – Enhancement
of retirement age – Held: Age of superannuation is an integral part
of the service condition of the employee –  Also, enhancement of
superannuation age would impliedly amount to a privilege since it
was provided particularly for the central public sector employees.
Interpretation of statutes: Beneficent law – Liberal
construction – Held: Beneficial laws should be construed liberally
– The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is one of the welfare legislations
which intends to provide and protect the benefits of the employees
– Therefore,  it should be interpreted in a liberal and broad manner
so that maximum benefits could reach to the employees – Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947.
Words and phrases: Privilege – Meaning of.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is one of the
welfare legislations which intends to provide and protect the
benefits of the employees. Hence, it shall be interpreted in a
liberal and broad manner so that maximum benefits could reach
to the employees. Any attempt to do strict interpretation would
undermine the intention of the legislature.  [Para 11] [514-F]
2. The grievance of the appellant-Company before this Court
is that the increase in the superannuation age of the employees
was temporary in nature in order to combat the losses and in no
circumstances, it can be said that withdrawal of it amounts to
withdrawal of customary concession or privilege or change in
usage. Eighth clause of the Fourth Schedule says “withdrawal of
any customary concession or privilege or change in usage”. The
whole dispute revolves around the interpretation of the terms
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

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