JUDGMENT :

Hegde, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave against the award made by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, the only question that arises for decision is whether the tribunal erred in fixing the age of superannuation of the workmen of the appellant company at 60 years.

2. The tribunal, after examining the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there is a general trend in Delhi area to raise the age of superannuation of workmen to 60 years. Herein we have two categories of workmen, namely- (i) clerical staff and (ii) other workmen, such as peons, daftries, drivers, fitters etc. So far as clerical staff is concerned, there is a pension scheme, which provides for payment of pension to those who are superannuated, the quantum of pension being fixed at 40 per centum of the average basic salary of the workmen concerned during the last five years of his service.

3. In the appellant Company, there was no age of superannuation till 1955. Thereafter the age of superannuation was fixed at 55 years. The age of superannuation thus fixed was not altered in the various agreements entered into between the parties ever since 1955. As mentioned earlier, according to the impugned award the tribunal has raised the age of superannuation to 60 years. The tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that in determining the age of superannuation of its workmen, the comparable concerns to be taken into consideration are the other oil companies only and not the remaining concerns and consequently it did not attach importance to the circumstance that at the time it made the award the age of superannuation of workmen in Caltex was 55 years and that in Esso was 57 years. We may mention at this stage that as per the agreements entered into between the Caltex company and its workmen on September 20, 1967, the age of superannuation of workmen in the said company has been raised to 58 years. The tribunal also rejected the contention of the appellant that it being an all-India concern it is necessary to have a uniform age of superannuation for its workmen throughout the country. It was said on behalf of the appellant that as per the agreements entered into between the management and its workmen at Bombay and Calcutta, the age of superannuation of its workmen in those areas had been fixed at 58 years. Mr G.B. Pai, learned counsel for the appellant, offered to apply the same rule to the appellant's workmen in the Delhi area.

4. The complaint of the appellant was that while fixing the wage scale and dearness allowance of its workmen, the same tribunal considered the other oil companies, particularly Esso, as comparable concerns but while deciding the age of superannuation it adopted a different standard. This we were told was impermissible.

5. As observed by this Court in Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Limited v. Workmen, (1960) 2 SCR 51. "There is no doubt that in the case of an at all- India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in such a concern they should not be lightly changed. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of an all-India concern are uniform. Besides, however desirable uniformity may be in the case of all-India concerns, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeing that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concerned. If therefore any scheme, which maybe uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing conditions in such matters, particularly in the regio