1. The application filed seeking amendment of clause 22 of the Certified Standing orders enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years, was allowed by the second respondent certifying officer under the Industrial Employment Standing orders Act and age of retirement was fixed as 60 years. Appeal preferred by the third respondent was unsuccessful as the appellant authority confirmed orders passed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the second and third respondents this petition is presented by the company M/S Kennermental India Limited praying for setting aside the orders which are at Annexures ‘F’ and ‘K’ to this writ petition.

2. The facts which fall in narrow compass are that clause 22 of the standing orders of the petitioner’s company provided for the age of retirement at 58 years but giving the company the discretion to extend the service of a particular employee beyond the aforesaid age limit, subject to the employee being found medically fit by the medical officer, by such terms and conditions a company may prescribe in this behalf. It is this clause 22 of the certifying standing orders that was sought to be amended by way of an application presented by the first respondent association.

3. In the application filed by the first respondent among other things it was stated that as there is a provision for increasing age of retirement beyond 58 years though discretion was vested in this regard with the management, there can be no impediment to allow the amendment sought.

4. The petitioner company on the other hand contended before the Certified Officer that as the settlement entered between the petitioner company and the first respondent association had clearly fixed the age of retirement 58 years as the association also had agreed not to rise any dispute which would have financial implications, the questions of permitting the amendment sought does not arise. Certifying Officer accepted and the appellant authority also confirmed the said order.

5. Learned senior counsel Sri S N Murthy for the petitioner referring to clause 22 of the certifying standing orders of the company and to the settlement entered into between the parties on 5.12.2007 (as per Annexure A) argued that when the association on behalf of the workmen had agreed not to raise any demand involving financial burden on the management during the operation of the settlement, the Certifying Officer could not have allowed the amendment application. More so, when the settlement was to remain in force till 30.6.11. Therefore, the order passed by the authorities concerned, namely, second and third respondent are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex court in the case of (i) Barauni Refineries Pragatisheel Sharmik Parishad and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and others (ii) General Secretary, Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union and Jt. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and others (1991 (1) LLJ 46). Therefore the orders impugned be set aside.

6. On the other hand K.S. Subrahmanya, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent support the impugned orders passed by second and third respondents and contended that when the clause in the standing orders namely clause 22 itself gives a liberate to the management to extend the date of retirement beyond 58 years though under certain conditions, the order passed by the certifying officer which was confirmed by the appellate authority therefore is in accordance with the aforesaid clause 22 of the standing orders. It is thus submitted by him that as between the standing orders and the settlement, the standing order will have to prevail over the settlement, and for this reason also the impugned orders call for no interference.

7. The next submission made is that having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Western India Match Company Ltd., Vs. Workmen, Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd., Versus Their workmen, the order passed by the Cer