IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a party to a settlement should not be allowed to question the locus standi of another party at the stage of implementation.

JUDGMENT :

R.F.NARIMAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The short question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the appellant – Registered Trade Union -had locus to prefer an application to modify a standing order that applies to the employees of the respondent under Section 38(2) of The Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The brief facts necessary in order to dispose of this appeal are as follows :

The original standing order with which we are concerned, and which stated the age of retirement of the employees of the bank, reads as follows :-

“22(7) Every employee shall retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years, Extension not exceeding one year at a time or three years in all may be given at the discretion of the president.”

3. By two Agreements dated 11.01.2004 and 21.02.2010 which were settlements under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act entered into between the respondent and its employees, it was agreed vide Clause 16 of the 2004 settlement and Clause 15 of the 2010 settlement that the retirement age would now be 58 years. A reference was made under Section 73A of The Bombay Industrial Relations Act (as it was then styled) to the Industrial Court, which then made an award in terms of the two settlements entered into. This award was dated 10.03.2010. However, when it was pointed out that formalities under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act in modifying the standing order 22(7) needed to be gone through in order to implement the two settlements which culminated in an award, the appellant – Registered Union -filed an application on behalf of the employees dated 26.04.2011 under Section 38(2) of the said Act. Armed with the consent letter from various other unions dated 04.09.2012, the application was heard by the Additional Labour Commissioner. The Additional Labour Commissioner, vide his order dated 25.10.2012, recorded as follows :-

“As the employees of the said Bank are also employed in other different local areas of viz. Tasgaon, Kavathe Mahankal, Khanapur, Atpadi, Jath, Shirala, Walwa, Miraj, Palus, Kadegaon talukas and they are represented by Kolhapur District Bank Employees Union, Kolhapur which is the representative and approved union for Banking Industry for the abovesaid local areas, the said union’s views were obtained in accordance with the provisions of sec. 39 (1) of the Bombay Relations Act, 1946. The said union by their letter dated 04/09/2012 conveyed that they have no objection in the matter of settlement of alteration to the said Standing Order.

In accordance with the provisions of section 39 (1) of the Act, the management of the said Bank was requested to file their say in respect of the proposed alteration. The Bank by their communication dt. 19/03/2012 communicated their various objections objecting the union’s proposed alteration, but the management of the Bank could not refute the fact that they have made two settlements dated 11/01/2004 and 21/02/2010 wherein the management Bank has agreed to alter the retirement age of their employees from 55 to 58.

As both the parties i.e. the employees through their representative unions, and also the management of the said Bank have already mutually made the agreements to effect the change in retirement age, I find no difficulty to make the alteration to the Standing Order clause No. 22(7) which will read as under :

Standing Order No. 22 (7) – Every employee shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. Extension not exceeding one year at a time or three years in all may be given at the discretion of the President.”

4. However, an appeal was filed by the Bank in November 2012 against the said order, in which essentially one point was taken up, which was that under Section 38(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, only an employee, as defined under the said Act, could apply to the Commissioner of Labour for an alteration of a standing order and the Registered Union, being separately defined, would therefore have no loc