2005 Supreme(Kar) 479

Karnataka High Court
GENERAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA KARYA niratha PATHRAKARTHARA SANGHA, BANGALORE - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, PRINTERS (MYSORE) limited, PRAJAVANI AND DECCAN HERALD, bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 08-09-05
Writ Petition : 14398 of 1999

Headnote:Age of superannuation

       INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946

       Section 4 -Age of superannuation -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Wage Board -Recommending age of superannuation to be 60 years -Issue of age of retirement does not fall within the scope of Wage Board -Hence, cannot make such recommendation, nor it can confer any right on the working journalists -Hence retirement has to be in accordance with standing orders.

       [N. Kumar, J]: When once the Standing Orders are certified and it is in conformity with the schedule attached to the Standing Orders Act and when the management acts in terms of the said Certified Orders they cannot be found fault with. Section 4 of the Standing Orders Act provides for modification alteration of the Certified Standing Orders. It is always open to the Union or the employees to move the appropriate authority under the Act for modifications or alterations of any Standing Order. If the authority is convinced about their grievances certainly it has the power to make such alterations or additions. Admittedly in the instant case till today the petitioners have not made any attempt to get the Certified Standing Orders modified/altered fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years. Therefore, as the Standing Orders says the age of retirement is 58 years and retirement of these journalists in terms of the said Standing Orders is legal and valid and cannot be found fault with.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Promotion

       LABOUR AND SERVICES -Promotion -Employee contended that, promotion was not given to him for he was involved in Union activities -On the other hand, promotions were given to employees on their merit and seniority -Employee failing to show that, anybody was promoted to the contrary -Claim of employee cannot be sustained.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The promotion which he claims should have been given to him in 1977, 1983, and 1991. He retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.1994. He did not raise any dispute or agitate his right for promotion while he was in service. There is no material placed on record to show as contended by him persons who are less meritorious and who are juniors to him have been promoted overlooking his claim. Therefore, if he choose to raise the dispute regarding denial of promotion only after his retirement it lacks merits and bonafides.

       LABOUR AND SERVICES - Promotion - Promotion -Employee contended that, promotion was not given to him for he was involved in Union activities -On the other hand, promotions were given to employees on their merit and seniority -Employee failing to show that, anybody was promoted to the contrary -Claim of employee cannot be sustained. [N. Kumar, J]: The promotion which he claims should have been given to him in 1977, 1983, and 1991. He retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.4.1994. He did not raise any dispute or agitate his right for promotion while he was in service. There is no material placed on record to show as contended by him persons who are less meritorious and who are juniors to him have been promoted overlooking his claim. Therefore, if he choose to raise the dispute regarding denial of promotion only after his retirement it lacks merits and bonafides.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Constitution of India -Discrimination -Article 14 -Discrimination -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Some employees appointed after retirement on contract basis -Employees claiming that, they should be retired at the age of 60 years as the persons employed on contract basis would be enjoying the benefit -Held, it is not a case of extension-Hence, there is no discrimination. [N. Kumar, J]: It is also contended that the management has granted the extension of two years in terms of clause 32.1 of the Standing Orders to persons who are similarly placed in the establishment. In support of the said contention no evidence is adduced before the Labour Court. On the contrary, the material on record establishes on completion of 58 years those employees were retired and all retiremental benefits to which they are entitled to in law were given. Thereafter their services were utilized on contract basis. It is not a case of extension. It is a case of fresh appointment on contract basis of specialized category of journalists only. This appointment on contract basis is not limited to only those who retired from the establishment but in some cases outsiders who have worked as journalists in other establishment have also been taken on contract basis for a particular period. Therefore, the plea of discrimination has no substance and accordingly it has to fail.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Discrimination

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 14 -Discrimination -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Some employees appointed after retirement on contract basis -Employees claiming that, they should be retired at the age of 60 years as the persons employed on contract basis would be enjoying the benefit -Held, it is not a case of extension-Hence, there is no discrimination.

       [N. Kumar, J]: It is also contended that the management has granted the extension of two years in terms of clause 32.1 of the Standing Orders to persons who are similarly placed in the establishment. In support of the said contention no evidence is adduced before the Labour Court. On the contrary, the material on record establishes on completion of 58 years those employees were retired and all retiremental benefits to which they are entitled to in law were given. Thereafter their services were utilized on contract basis. It is not a case of extension. It is a case of fresh appointment on contract basis of specialized category of journalists only. This appointment on contract basis is not limited to only those who retired from the establishment but in some cases outsiders who have worked as journalists in other establishment have also been taken on contract basis for a particular period. Therefore, the plea of discrimination has no substance and accordingly it has to fail.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Working Journalists and other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Preamble - Object - Object of the Act -Stated. [N. Kumar, J]: The working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees. (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was enacted to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. The Act is the beneficial legislation enacted for the purpose of improving the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper establishments. Chapter II of the Act deals with certain conditions of service of the working journalists. These provisions relate to the retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of works, leave, fixation or revisions etc. Chapter II-A of the Act deals with similar condition/of service of non-journalist newspaper employees. Chapter III deals with application of certain Acts to newspaper employees. After the enactment, seven amendments have been carried out to the said Act based on the recommendations and judgments of the Supreme Court. Section 14 of the said Act provides that provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable to every newspaper establishment wherein 20 or more newspaper employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. Similarly Section 15 of the Act extends the provisions of Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 to the newspaper establishment. Section 16 of the Act provides that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of the Act. However, if any employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to more favourable benefits in respect of that matter.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Working Journalists and other News Paper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 1445 - Retirement age - Retirement age -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Wage Board -Recommending age of superannuation to be 60 years -Issue of age of retirement does not fall within the scope of Wage Board -Hence, cannot make such recommendation, nor it can confer any right on the working journalists -Hence retirement has to be in accordance with standing orders. [N. Kumar, J]: If the Wage Board in its recommendations make recommendations in respect of matters which are outside the scope of the Act and if the Government were to accept such recommendations without proper application of mind such recommendations and the acceptance of such recommendations by the Government would be wholly without jurisdiction, void ab initio and unenforceable even if such recommendations are published in the official gazette as required under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. Such recommendations de hors the scope of the Act i.e., fixation and revision of wages would not confer any right to any person. When once the Standing Orders are certified and it is in conformity with the schedule attached to the Standing Orders Act and when the management acts in terms of the said Certified Orders they cannot be found fault with. Section 4 of the Standing Orders Act provides for modification alteration of the Certified Standing Orders. It is always open to the Union or the employees to move the appropriate authority under the Act for modifications or alterations of any Standing Order. If the authority is convinced about their grievances certainly it has the power to make such alterations or additions. Admittedly in the instant case till today the petitioners have not made any attempt to get the Certified Standing Orders modified/altered fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years. Therefore, as the Standing Orders says the age of retirement is 58 years and retirement of these journalists in terms of the said Standing Orders is legal and valid and cannot be found fault with.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - Section 4 - Age of superannuation - Section 4 -Age of superannuation -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Wage Board -Recommending age of superannuation to be 60 years -Issue of age of retirement does not fall within the scope of Wage Board -Hence, cannot make such recommendation, nor it can confer any right on the working journalists -Hence retirement has to be in accordance with standing orders. [N. Kumar, J]: When once the Standing Orders are certified and it is in conformity with the schedule attached to the Standing Orders Act and when the management acts in terms of the said Certified Orders they cannot be found fault with. Section 4 of the Standing Orders Act provides for modification alteration of the Certified Standing Orders. It is always open to the Union or the employees to move the appropriate authority under the Act for modifications or alterations of any Standing Order. If the authority is convinced about their grievances certainly it has the power to make such alterations or additions. Admittedly in the instant case till today the petitioners have not made any attempt to get the Certified Standing Orders modified/altered fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years. Therefore, as the Standing Orders says the age of retirement is 58 years and retirement of these journalists in terms of the said Standing Orders is legal and valid and cannot be found fault with.

       Cases Referred: OJC No. 1001/89; LLJ 1967 (1) SC 114.

       Object

       WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER NEWS PAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955 - Object of the Act -Stated.

       [N. Kumar, J]: The working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees. (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was enacted to regulate certain conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. The Act is the beneficial legislation enacted for the purpose of improving the conditions of service of the employees of the newspaper establishments. Chapter II of the Act deals with certain conditions of service of the working journalists. These provisions relate to the retrenchment, payment of gratuity, hours of works, leave, fixation or revisions etc. Chapter II-A of the Act deals with similar condition/of service of non-journalist newspaper employees. Chapter III deals with application of certain Acts to newspaper employees. After the enactment, seven amendments have been carried out to the said Act based on the recommendations and judgments of the Supreme Court. Section 14 of the said Act provides that provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable to every newspaper establishment wherein 20 or more newspaper employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months. Similarly Section 15 of the Act extends the provisions of Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 to the newspaper establishment. Section 16 of the Act provides that provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in the terms of any award, agreement or contract of service, whether made before or after the commencement of the Act. However, if any employee is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act the newspaper employee shall continue to be entitled to more favourable benefits in respect of that matter.

       Retirement age

       WORKING JOURNALISTS AND OTHER NEWS PAPER EMPLOYEES (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1955 - Retirement age -Employees superannuated at the age of 58 years -Wage Board -Recommending age of superannuation to be 60 years -Issue of age of retirement does not fall within the scope of Wage Board -Hence, cannot make such recommendation, nor it can confer any right on the working journalists -Hence retirement has to be in accordance with standing orders.

       [N. Kumar, J]: If the Wage Board in its recommendations make recommendations in respect of matters which are outside the scope of the Act and if the Government were to accept such recommendations without proper application of mind such recommendations and the acceptance of such recommendations by the Government would be wholly without jurisdiction, void ab initio and unenforceable even if such recommendations are published in the official gazette as required under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. Such recommendations de hors the scope of the Act i.e., fixation and revision of wages would not confer any right to any person. When once the Standing Orders are certified and it is in conformity with the schedule attached to the Standing Orders Act and when the management acts in terms of the said Certified Orders they cannot be found fault with. Section 4 of the Standing Orders Act provides for modification alteration of the Certified Standing Orders. It is always open to the Union or the employees to move the appropriate authority under the Act for modifications or alterations of any Standing Order. If the authority is convinced about their grievances certainly it has the power to make such alterations or additions. Admittedly in the instant case till today the petitioners have not made any attempt to get the Certified Standing Orders modified/altered fixing the age of superannuation as 60 years. Therefore, as the Standing Orders says the age of retirement is 58 years and retirement of these journalists in terms of the said Standing Orders is legal and valid and cannot be found fault with.