Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J.
The Management of Hindalco Industries Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
General Secretary, Indal Employees Union, Hindalco Industries Ltd. – Respondent
W.P. No. 119764 of 2020
Decided On : 21-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 7, 9A – Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 5, 6, 15, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2005 – Seeking for enhancement – Whether any modification or addition to draft standing orders submitted by employer was necessary to render draft standing orders certifiable under the Act and it was required to pass an order accordingly – Whether proposed amendment to standing orders were in interest of all stakeholders – Whether standing orders are fair and reasonable and are in accordance with provisions of the Act – Para 61.
Finding of the court: Thus, it can be safely concluded that orders of appellate authority had been received within a week or two of passing of the orders – It can therefore be assumed that on expiry of seven days from receipt of order of appellate authority, modifications to standing orders have become into operation – However, given length of time that this litigation has consumed and fact that petitioner contested appeal vigorously and was aware of dismissal of appeal, it would be proper and appropriate to fix date of order of appellate authority itself as date from which modifications to standing orders would come into effect – Petitioner had benefit of an interim order, as a result of which, operation of modifications to the standing order was stayed.
Results: Writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows.
2. On 13.04.1971, the Indian Aluminium Company Limited, Belgaum works Standing Orders (for short “the Standing Orders”) were certified as required under S. 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short “the Act, 1946”).
3. The Indian Aluminium Company merged with Hindalco Industries i.e. the present petitioner and as a consequence, the standing orders certified on 13.04.1971 became applicable to the petitioner and its workmen.
4. The Petitioner and its Unions, over a period of time, had entered into Long-Term Settlements which would be valid for a specified time. As of 2016, the petitioner had entered into 14 settlements with the trade unions, each of which were in subsistence for an agreed period. These settlements were entered into to prevent the occurrence of a possible industrial dispute between the Management and the Unions and ensure there was industrial peace.
5. In keeping with this practice of entering into another Long-Term Settlement i.e. the XV settlement, negotiations commenced with respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the recognized trade unions. A charter of demands was submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner on 06.10.2016 and by respondent No. 3 on 01.12.2016. In these charter of demands, amongst several other demands, one of the demands made by the Unions was that the age of superannuation which had been fixed at 58 years in Clause 26 of the certified standing orders should be enhanced to 60 years.
6. The Management also submitted their proposals to the Unions on 02.01.2017 and thereafter discussions were held between the petitioners and the Unions ultimately all of them approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner to join in on the discussion and the matter was admitted into conciliation by notice dated 14.09.2017. A proceeding came to be held on 20.09.2017, on which day, the terms of understanding were finalized and the XV settlement was thus arrived at. The settlement was reduced in the form of a memorandum and was also signed by the petitioner and the three Unions. The memorandum containing the terms of the settlement were set forth by way of 17 Articles. The Memorandum of Settlement also indicated that it had been entered into under S. 18(3) read with S. 12 (3) of the ID Act.
7. Even as these charter of demands were being deliberated upon by the petitioner and the Unions, on 27.03.2017, the State of Karnataka, in the exercise of its powers conferred under S. 15 of the Act, 1946 amended the two model standing orders that it had set out in Schedule I to the Karnataka Employment (Standing Orders) Rules. These model standing orders related to “Workmen excluding clerks and other Ministerial staff” and to “Clerks and other Ministerial staff.”
8. By this amendment to the model standing orders, the age of retirement prescribed as 58 years in the model standing orders was substituted as 60 years for both “Workmen” and also for “Clerks and Ministerial staff.” Thus, the model standing orders prescribed by the Act in respect of the State of Karnataka, the age of retirement became 60 years instead of 58 years.
9. It is to be stated here that though a demand had been made for enhancement of the retirement age in the charter of demands, the settlement was, admittedly, silent in respect of the demand that had been made for enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. It was not even stated in the settlement as to whether the said demand had been considered or deliberated upon, let alone, state whether it had been granted or refused.
10. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the recognized unions, about six months after the settlement, made an application on 14.03.2018 to the certifying authority for modification of the existing standing orders. By this application, a request was made to modify Clause 26 of the standing orders relating to the age of retirement. The request was to enhance the age of retirement f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
