The main legal point established in the judgment is that settlements between the employer and the trade union have binding nature, and subsequent amendments to the Model Standing Orders cannot be used to modify the Certified Standing Orders without an agreement between the parties.

JUDGMENT

SREEN IVAS HARISH KUMAR,J. - The order dtd. 16/3/2021 in Writ Petition No. 204077/2018 is assailed in this Writ Appeal. The appellant is the Trade Union of the Workers of the first respondent company which is involved in manufacture of cement. The second respondent is the Additional Labour Commissioner.

2. The factual background for this writ appeal being filed is as follows :

There are about 278 workmen in the skilled and unskilled category working in the first respondent industrial unit. The first respondent and the appellant used to enter into bi-partite settlements for regulating the service conditions of the workmen . Industrial establishmen ts may adopt Model Standing Orders ('MSO' for short) issued by Government o f Karnataka or it may have its own Standing Orders certified by the Certifying Officer in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short 'the Act'). The first respondent had its own Standing Orders certified by the Certi fying Of ficer. The earlier settlement between the appellant and the first respondent which had been certified by the Certifying Officer prescribed 55 years as the age of retirement of the workmen of the first respondent. The last bi-partite settlement was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent on 26/10/2016. Before this settlement came into existence, the appellant placed before the first respondent a charter of demands, one of which related to retirement age. The demand was to increase the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. After discussion , the appellant and the first respondent arrived at a settlement on 26/10/2016; the first respondent accepted certain demands and it was agreed between the parties that all other disputes/demands raised in the char ter but not covered under the settlement should be deemed to have been dropped. It was also agreed that the demands which were dropped would not be raised or re-negotiated during the period of operation of the settlement, which was operational for a period of five years from 1 .6.2016 to 31/5/2021. This settlement was certi fied by the Certifying Officer. The demand for increasing the age of retirement was thus dropped and therefore the age of retirement continued to be 58 years. This being the background, the Government o f Karnataka amended the MSO by issuing a notification dtd. 27/3/2017 and thereby increased the age of retirement to 60 years from 58 years. Pursuant to this notification the appellant submitted an application to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certi fying Officer, Kalaburagi region, on 13/5/2017 for modi fying clause 23.2 of the Certi fied Standing Orders ('CSO' for short) by increasing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The Deputy Labour Commissioner notified the first respondent of this representation and then the first respondent appeared and filed detailed statemen t o f objections. According to the first respondent, the Deputy Labour Commissionercum-Certifying Officer did not conduct any enquiry and passed an order on 31/10/2017 modifying clause 23 .2 of CSO for increasing the age of retirement o f the workmen from 58 to 60 years. Aggrieved by this order , the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Additional Labour Commissioner who too, by his order dtd. 10/10/2018, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the order of Additional Labour Commissioner, the first respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 204077/2018 before this cour t and the said writ petition being allowed, this Writ Appeal has been preferred.

3. The learned single Judge formulated the following four points for discussion :

"1. What is the effect of Model Standing Orders, and to whom it would apply to?

2. In the event of there being a settlement between the employer and the Trade Union, on which basis the Certi fying Standing Orders are amended, would Model Standing Orders be applicable to the establishment?

3. Can any of the parties claim the benefit o f the Model Standi