WORKMEN OF THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (REFINING DIVISION) BOMBAY versus BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 06-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.f 
• 
'"""' . 
-
I •• 
WORKMEN 01' THE BHARAT PETROLEUM 
CORPORATION LTD. (REFINING 
'DIVISION) BOMBAY 
v • 
BHARAT PETROLEUM <;ORPORATION 
. 
LTD, AND AN6THER 
October 6, 1983 
(D.A. DESAI, 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
251 
lndustriat'Disputes Act-:-lndustria/ dispute regarding raisinz of retirenzent 
age-Different factors for detern1ining retirement age-Trend in a particular 
area-Most important factor-Trend need not be static-Modern conditions and. 
zeneral trend in favour of raising ~etirement age-Trend in Bombay region in 
favour of raising retirement age. 
For applying industry.cum regional formula-
lfno comparable industries in the region-Regional aspect to be given precedence. 
An industrial dlspiite with regard to the raising of the age of retirement 
of the clerical staff empJoyed ip the Refinery Division of the respondent oil 
Company at Bombay from 55 to 60 years was referred to thC InduStrial 
Tribunal. Th"e workmen contended that there was a trend in the Bombay 
region to fix the age of retirement of clerical employees at 60 years and in the 
comparable concerns as well as in the Marketing Division of the Company 
·itself the age of the clerical employees was above 55 years. The Company 
coutended that the wage scales of their clerical employees were far better than 
those of similar categories of empl('lyees in comparable concerns an'd that the 
company took a generous view in tbe settlement dated 31-10-1973 ant;!. arrived 
at a package deal and revised the benefits of t~e employees taking into con .. 
sideration the agreen1ent of the employees to continue the age of retirement 
of the' Clerical employees of the Refinery Division at 55 years. .Neither party 
led any oral evidence but filed their respective comparative statements. The 
Tribunal found as a fact that the wage sciiles of the Company were not much 
better than the wage scales of other comparable concerns. The Tribunal also 
noticed that the age of retirement of the clerical staff of the Company in its 
. Marketing.Division both at Bombay and other p13ces was fixed at 58 years, 
But the Tribunal found that the Company's contention regarding the settlement 
being a package deal in regard even to .the age of retirement after taking other 
benefits into consideration was not without substance and observed that it was, 
however, not sufficient to reject the workmC:n's demand in toto and that it had 
to be taken into acrount while eonsi~ering the extent to which the age of 
retirement Should be raised. Having regard to the circumstances of the case 
and in the interest of industrial harmony, the Tribunal raised the aee of 
retirement to 58 years only. In appeal to this Court the workmen relied On the 
'trend' in the Bombay re~ion while the Company relied on the position in other 
oil Companies. 
, 
· · 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
11 
G 
H. 
A 
-· B 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
.. 
G 
H 
SUPRllME COuRT REPORTS 
[1984] l s.c.R. 
Allowfug the appeal and fixing the age of retirement at 60 years, b7 
majority. 
HELD• (Per Desai and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.) 
In fixing the age of superannuation, the most important factor that has 
to be taken into consideration is the trelld in a particular area. From the 
various decisions rendered by this Court and by the Tribuna1s, it is obvious 
that in the early sixties 'the trend in the Bombay region .was to ralse the age 
.of superannuation to 60 years. Industrial and labour conditions do not 
remain stagnant des.pite tho passage of time. Industrial 4 Iabour relations need 
revision frotll tin1e to tii:ne to fit and suit changing conditions. That there was 
an upward trend-to raise the age of retirement to 60 in the early sixties may not 
necessarily mean that the same trend has continued till today. 
[259 H; 260 D-E; 260 G-H] 
Guest, Keen; Willianis Private Ltd, l's. P. 1. Sterling & Ors. [1960] 1 · 
S .C.R. 3481 Dunlop Rubber Company Limited v. Workmen & Ors. [1960) 2 
S.C.R. 51; Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen,'[1961) 2 
S.C.R. 349; British Paints (India) "Ltd. v. Its workmen [1966] 2 S.C.R. 523; 
G.M. Ta/ang v. Shaw Wallace & Co. [1964) 7 S.C.R. 4_26; Burmah Shell Oil · 
Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1970) I LLJ 
J63, re/erred to. 
Iµ the. instant ,,-case, the: Company did not plead that there was any 
,rever~l of the trend nor· did the Company. urge that there was any such 
reverial of the trend. On the other hand, it may very well be said that there 
has b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.