Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
Healthcare Limited – Appellant
Versus
President, Bangalore East Industrial Workers Union – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23489 of 2021 (L-RES)
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act - Amendment of Certified Standing Orders - Sec. 6, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - The court upheld the amendment of the Certified Standing Orders to enhance the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, as it was found to be justified in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, TTK Healthcare, had Certified Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, with a clause pertaining to retirement at the age of 58 years. The first respondent Union submitted a demand to enhance the retirement age to 60 years, which was initially dropped in a settlement signed for the period 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. However, the Union later requested the amendment of the Certified Standing Orders, which was allowed by the Certifying Officer and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner challenged these orders in a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendment of the Certified Standing Orders to enhance the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years was justified in law, as it was made in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment/modification of the Certified Standing Order to enhance the retirement age was justified in law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Sec. 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the relevant case law, including the BARAUNI REFINERY case, to conclude that the Certifying Officer had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment of a Standing Order during the currency of the period of settlement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the amendment of the Certified Standing Orders to enhance the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar., for petitioner and Sri.Subba Rao., learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.L.Muralidhar Peshwa., for respondent No.1 have appeared through video conferencing. Smt.K.Shobha., learned HCGP for Respondents 2 and 3 has appeared in person.
2. The facts can be stated quite shortly as under: TTK Healthcare - the petitioner has Certified Standing Orders on 24/7/2013 under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Clause 15 pertains to retirement of workers at the age of 58 years. The first respondent Union submitted Charter of Demands dtd.:7/11/2016. In this, Clause 20 pertains to retirement demanding enhancement of existing age of 58 years to 60 years. It is stated that there were marathon discussions on the Charter of Demands and ultimately a settlement was signed on 28/4/2018 for the period 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. It is averred that Clauses 12(31), 12(32) and 12(39) of the terms of settlement pertains to Union agreeing not to raise any fresh demands and dropping rest of the demands contained in Charter of Demands dtd.:7/11/2016. Thus, the Union had agreed in the settlement to drop the demand for enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. When matters stood thus, Union - the first respondent by letter dtd.:1/6/2019 requested the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer - the second respondent to amend the Certified Standing Orders to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. TTK Healthcare Limited - the petitioner filed reply dtd.:13/8/2019 and 22/9/2020 that the request of the Union for enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years is not maintainable and may be rejected. It is averred that the Certifying Officer has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in BARAUNI REFINERY 1991 (1) LLJ 46, but did not follow the same. After hearing the parties, the Certifying Officer passed an order dtd.:15/2/2021 allowing the request of Union and increased/enhanced the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years by amending Clause 15 of the Certified Standing Orders. Aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer, TTK Healthcare Limited - the petitioner filed an Appeal under Sec. 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the Additional Labour Commissioner (IR) and Appellate Authority - the third respondent. The Union filed objections to the appeal on 28/7/2021. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Certifying Officer and dismissed the appeal vide order dtd.:18/11/2021. The order passed by the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority have been challenged in the present Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel primarily contended that the TTK health Care "" the petitioner and the Union - first respondent are bound by the terms of the settlement. The settlement is for a period of three years from 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. The Union agreed not to raise any fresh demands and dropping the rest of the demands contained in Charter of Demands. Hence, the application seeking amendment of Standing Orders is not maintainable.
To substantiate the said contention, Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1. BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK PARISHAD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED - (1991) 1 SCC 4.
2. KENNAMETAL INDIA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS "" W.A.NO.400/2011 dtd.:27/7/2011.
3. ITI LIMITED VS. VENUGOPALAN.N - W.A.NO.6812/2003 dtd.:22/3/2010.
4. GUEST, KEEN, WILLIAMS PR LTD., CALCUTTA VS. P.J.STERLING AND OTHERS - AIR 1959 SC 1279.
5. RAJU.M.C VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KHARKHANE LTD. - W.P.NO.34992/1982 dtd.:12/10/1982.
6. VIKRANTH TYRES EMPLOYEES UNION VS.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment of Certified Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, can be justified in law if made in acc....
Point of Law : Under the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement has been defined as a settlement which is arrived at during a conciliation proceeding and it also includes a written agreement arrived a....
Chapter IVA contained Section 41A to 41H of the Factories Act, 1948 deals with ‘Provisions relating to Hazardous Process’, these provisions deal with the manner of setting up of a factory dealing wit....
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 use....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the retirement age can be increased based on factors such as the nature of work, financial aspects, global trends, and judicial opinion, and e....
Each industrial establishment of a Company can have different Certified Standing Orders and different ages of retirement. On amalgamation, the CSOs applicable to each industrial establishment continu....
Section 10 of IESO Act is reproduced hereunder for Duration and modification of standing orders.
The legal principle established is the binding nature of government guidelines mandating a retirement age of 60 years for Central Public Sector Enterprises, overriding any contradictory internal regu....
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
