( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the workman M. C. Raju challenging the order made by the learned single Judge on 12-10-1982 dismissing his Writ Petition No. 34992/82.

( 2 ) THE brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows: the appellant was in the service of the respondent from the year 1947. After he attained the age of 55 years the respondent gave him an extension of service for six months. On the expiry of the extended term he was sought to be retired from service with effect from 1-10-1982. The appellant made a request to the respondent to continue him in service until he attains the age of 58 years, as per Annexure-C, on the ground that the Model Standing Orders prescribed under the Karnataka Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the rules), have been amended with effect from 11-3-1982 by inserting Clause-15a providing 58 years as the age for retirement or superannuation of a workman. As there was no response from the respondent to his request he filed Writ Petition No. 34992/82 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to continue him in service till he attained the age of 58 years. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 58 years on the basis of the amended Model Standing orders. The learned single Judge has taken the view that until the certified Standing orders of the respondent-Company are suitably amended providing 58 years as the age of superannuation of its workmen no workman can claim as a matter of right that he is entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 58 years. It is the correctness of the said view that is questioned by the appellant in this appeal.

( 3 ) THOUGH the exact date is not available, it is not disputed that the certified standing Orders of the respondent-Company framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had come into operation with effect from 2. 2. 1978. The schedule to the Act pertaining to the matters to be provided in the standing Orders under the Act did not specify the age of retirement or superannuation as one of the matters in respect of which provision should be made in the standing Orders. Even in the Model Standing Orders as they stood before 11. 3. 1982 there was no provision in regard to the age of retirement of Superannuation. In the certified Standing Orders of the respondent which were framed in conformity with the model Standing Orders and which came into operation with effect from 2. 2. 1978 there was no provision in regard to the age of retirement or superannuation. With effect from 11-3-1982, the schedule to the act was amended by the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Rules, 1982, specifying the age of retirement or superannuation as one of the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders under the Act. By the same amendment Rules the Model Standing orders were also amended with effect from 11-3-1982 by inserting Clause-15a providing that the age of retirement or superannuation of the workman may be 58 years or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which may be binding on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force.

( 4 ) BEFORE 11. 3. 1982 though there was no provision in the Model Standing Orders regarding age of superannuation or age of retirement, the same was governed by the settlement entered into between the workmen and the Management of the respondent, which provided 55 years as the age of retirement. The said settlement is dated 19. 8. 1977 and clause-5 thereof made a provision in this behalf. Clause-2 of the settlement makes it clear that the settlement was for a period of five years from 19. 8. 1977 to 17. 8. 1982. It is not disputed that no fresh settlement thereafte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document