Industrial adjudication should not normally encourage technical pleas and having regard to the fact that the cases are conducted before the Tribunal many times by laymen, the significance or the importance of the argument that a particular question is not put to a particular witness should never be exaggerated.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: An Industrial Dispute between the respondent, M/s. Balmer Lawrie and Co., and its employees, the appellants, has given rise to the present appeal by special leave. The dispute related to four demands made by the appellants and it was referred for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal to the Industrial Tribunal constituted under S. 7A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These demands were: grades and scales of pay, privilege leave, medical leave and retiring age. In regard to the claim of the appellants for reducing the existing five grades into two grades organised on a rational and scientific basis, the Tribunal held that, on the whole, the grades seemed to function satisfactorily, and so, no case had been made out for their amalgamation. The demand for increase in the scales of pay was substantially rejected by the Tribunal, but it held that the appellants should be given some relief by increasing the initial salary of all the grades by Rs. 10/-. The claims for privilege leave and medical leave were rejected by the Tribunal; it held that the mere fact that two concerns in the neighbourhood had agreed to give more than 21 days privilege leave, was no justification for changing the present rule as to privilege leave which governed the appellants, and as to medical leave, the Tribunal held that construction which the respondent was placing on the relevant rule contained in Exbt. F was inadmissible, and so, there was no necessity for introducing any rule that the production of a medical certificate from any medical practitioner should suffice. The Tribunal then examined the appellants claim as to the retirement age and it held that the exiting age of retirement which was at 55 needed no change. An award was accordingly passed in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the four demands made by the appellants It is this award which is challenged by the appellants before us.

2. In respect of the age of retirement, the approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be unsatisfactory. This question has been considered by this Court on several occasions, In Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling, 1960-1 SCR 348 this Court has discussed in a general way the considerations which are relevant and material in determining a proper age for superannuation in industrial employments. As has been observed by this Court recently in the case of Workmen of M/s. Jessop and Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Jessop and Co., C. A. No. 360 of 1961 D/- 2-8-1963 (SC) we feel that the time has now come for increasing the age of retirement in the case of clerical staff and the subordinate staff generally from 55 to 58. It appears that the attention of the Tribunal was not drawn to the relevant decisions of this Court; otherwise, the Tribunal would not have rejected the appellants claim. In fact, in the present appeal, Mr. Sen for the respondent has agreed that the age of retirement should be increased from 55 to 58. We accordingly reverse the order passed by the Tribunal in that behalf and direct that the age of retirement in the case of the respondent s workmen should be 58 and not 55 as from the date of this judgment.

3. That takes us to the question about the reduction of the grades from 5 to 2. Mr. Sanyal for the appellants contends that generally two grades are adopted by industrial concerns and he urges that the presence of five grades is both unscientific and inexpedient. It may be conceded that two or three grades are generally adopted by industrial concerns, but in the present case, it is necessary to bear in mind the previous history of the creation of these grades and to take into account the fact that these five grades have, on the whole satisfactorily functioned in the concern of the respondent. In the award pronounced between the parties, in 1949, these five grades were evolved. Floormen who are mentioned in the award correspond to Grade I which is described as the subgrade in the respondent s c