UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC. SUPPLY CO. LTD., ALLAHABAD versus T. N. CHATTERJEE

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 13-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

754 
UNITED PROVINCES ELECTRIC. SUPPLY CO. LTD., A 
ALLAHABAD 
v. 
T. N. CHATTERJEE 
March 13, 1972 
[S. M. S1KRI, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Employmen~ (Standing Orders) A.ct, 1946, s. 4 and $che-
dule items 8, 9 and 'UC and U.P. Industrial Employment (Standing 
Orders) Rules, 1946-Model S/llnding Orders, para 13-A.pp/icability of 
Standing Order re : age of retirement to emp/oYees 1'n service before the · C 
certifying of St~mding Orders--Framing .of Standing Order regarding re-
tirement before amendment, of 
Schf!dule--Certifying Officer, J' could 
-certify the standirig ·order a.s• fair or reasonable before ame 
men~ of 
s. 4-High Court der:iding question and remanding-When operates as 
res judicata. 
· 
·In accordance with the provisions 
of the . Industrial 
Employm~nt D 
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the U.P. Industrial Employment-(Siand-
ing Orders) Rules, 1946, the appellant submitted draft standing orders. 
defining the conditions. Qf employment of its employees and they W'!re 
certified by (he Certifying Offirer in 1951. Clause 32 of the Standing 
Orders provided that an employee who b~s served 30 years or who has · 
reached the age of 55 years will be retired, but, exemption from t):iis may 
be granted by the company in special case. In 1959, notices were served 
on the respondent-workmen that they were retired by- reason of their bav· 
:E . 
ing attained the age of superannuation ..s per cl.· 32. The workmen con-
tended that the clause was not binding or enfor"'iable as far as tbev were 
concerned, because, they bad entered the 9'rvice of the appellant prior 
to the c~rtification of the Standing Orders '3Dd there was no condition 
that they would be liable to retirement after attaining any prescribed age 
or any fixed period of service, and that they were entitled to continue in 
service as long as they were physically fit. 
TOO industrial dispute was 
referred to the Industrial Tnbu!l'.li and the Tribunal held in favoulr of 
F 
the appellant. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court. 
They also applied in 1960, under s. 10(2) of the Industrial Employment 
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, for amendment and modification of cl. 32 
claiming fixation of retirement age at 60. The Certifying Offil:er modi· 
tied the clause and fixed the age of retirement <1t 58, but the appellate 
authority refixed it at 55. 
· 
The High Cour~ in the writ petition, on the basis, of the decision of 
G 
this Court in Guest Keen WU/iams Pvt. Ltd., [1%0) 1 S.C.R. 348 bd<I 
that Cl. 32 was not applicable to the employees and directed the Tribunal 
to rehear the case. 
The Tribunal thereafter held that the respondent· 
workmen were wrongfully and unjustifiably retired. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (1) It was not intended by the Legislature that .dill'eblnt H 
sets of conditiol)s should apply to employees depending on whether a 
workman was employed before the Standink Ord~ were ·cer!ified 
or 
after, as t!:iat would defeat the object of the legislation. "The obi:<\t an<! 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. E,J.ECTRIC co. v. T. N. CHATTERJEE (Grover, J.) !755 
s~heme of the Act is that the employers must define precisely too con-
d111ons of employment of '111 the employees and have tlx:m certified by 
the Certifyi":g Officer. 
The right given to be workmen to e<press their 
views, to raise ObJect1ons, to appeal to the 
appellate authority and to 
ask for modification of the Standing Orders under s. 10 of the Act, show 
that every possible safeguard has teen provided in the interests of the 
workmen. 
Moreover, the individual items in the Schedule to the Act 
show that there cannot be different conditions for different employees 
depending upon the point of time when ,they came to be employed, f<lr 
that would result in a great deal of hesrt burning between the employees 
inter se. [762 R-H; 763 A-DJ 
Salem Erode El<etriclty Distrlburion Co. Ltd. v. Its Workers; 
[1966] 
2 S.C.R. 498, and Agra Elecl'ric Supply Co. Ltd., v. Sri Al/adin 4c Ors. 
[1970] I S.C.R. 808, followed. · 
• 
(2) The decision in Guest Keen Williams Pvt. Ltd. that the Industrial 
Tribunal had to consider not only the propriety, reasonableness and fair-
ness of a Standing Order but that it had also to deal with the question 
as to whether a particular Standing Order could be made 
applicable 
to employees who had already been employed without any limit as to 
age of retirement Was delivered under th

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