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 each case must be considered based on its peculiar facts.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 4/3/2016 passed by Respondent No.1 - Additional Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority as a consequence of which amendment to clause 23.1 of the Certified Standing Orders (for short 'CSO') of the Petitioner Company was permitted and the age of retirement of the workmen of the Petitioner - Company was stipulated at 60 years.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Hydraulic Cylinders and components for the Infrastructure and other Industries. The age of retirement is fixed at 58 years under Clause 23 of the CSO of the Petitioner Company. The Respondent No.2 - Union filed an application dtd. 4/7/2012 before the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1964 seeking for modification of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years. The said application was opposed by the Petitioner - Management by filing detailed objections. The Certifying Officer, vide order dtd. 7/8/2013 rejected the application.

3. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.2 - Union filed an Appeal before Respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority. The said Appeal was opposed by the Management by filing statement of objections. The Appellate Authority, vide order dtd. 3/3/2014 set aside the order passed by the Certifying Officer and allowed the application for amendment of the Standing Orders and increased the retirement of employees from 58 to 60 years.

4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed WP No.12137/2014 before this Court, which was allowed by order dtd. 8/7/2015, wherein the writ Petition filed by the Management was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and permitted both the parties to adduce evidence. The learned Single Judge further observed that in the event the Appellate Authority allows the appeal, the same shall come into force from the date on which the earlier order was passed i.e., 3/3/2014. Being aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned Single Judge, the Petitioner has filed WA No.2482/2015. A Division Bench of this Court, vide order dtd. 7/11/2015 modified the order of the learned Single Judge by setting aside the direction that the Standing Order to be amended would come into effect from 3/3/2014 and held that the amendment shall be prospective in nature.

5. After remand, both the parties adduced evidence. The Respondent No.1 - Appellate Authority by its order dtd. 4/3/2016 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the Certifying Officer and the modification sought for by Respondent No.2 - Union to Clause 23(1) of the CSO was allowed and the retirement age was increased from 58 to 60 years. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. This Court, vide order dtd. 19/7/2021 appointed two persons who are experts in the field to visit the Petitioner - Company and furnish a report as to whether the nature of work prevailing in the Company (Establishment) is arduous or hazardous or not, subsequent to which the reports have been submitted and the same has been taken on record vide order dtd. 13/12/2021.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Sri S.S.Naganand appearing for the Petitioner contended that, having regard to the nature of the work that is carried in the Petitioner - Company the retirement age ought not to be increased; that the report of the experts who were appointed discloses that the workmen while working in the assembly line is required to lift heavy materials and hence the retirement age ought not to be increased. In support of his submissions the learned Senior Counsel relies on various portions of the reports submitted to this Court as well as the portions of the impugned order to indicate that the nature of the work done is arduous and hazardous. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Guest, Keen, Willi