IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the Industrial Disputes Act allows for adjudication of disputes regarding retirement age, emphasizing the government's role in setting service conditions.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Central Silk Board Management challenging the Award dated 01.04.2013 in C.R. No. 151/2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “CGIT” for short).

2. The Central Government exercising powers conferred under Section 2(a)(1)(d) read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following question for adjudication of the CGIT:

“Whether the demand of the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale farm workers is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

3. After considering the contentions advanced and the material placed on record, the CGIT issued Annexure ‘Q’ - award. The operative portion of which reads as follows:

“The reference is allowed holding that the demand of the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale farm workers is legal and justified and that they are entitle to enhancement of their retirement age from 55 years to 60 years.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises following contentions:

(i) The dispute was raised by the Union Central Silk Board Employees Union. It is argued that since the Union is registered only under the State Government, not the Central Government, it fails to meet the requirement of Section 2(qq) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the dispute is not maintainable, as affirmed by past judicial decisions, it is contended.

(ii) The Central Silk Board is established under the Central Silk Board Act, 1948, Section 11 gives powers to the Central Government to control and modify the Board's actions. Section 13(2)(viii) speaks of framing rules for the approval of the budget and Section 13(2)(xiv) speaks of framing of rules for the staff. The retirement age of Time Scale Farm Workers (TSFW) was raised from 55 to 58 years as per a Central Government directive.

(iii) The Central Government has the power to issue service conditions, including retirement age, through administrative instructions even if not explicitly covered by legislation. This was affirmed by the Apex Court in various judgments.

(iv) The Central Silk Board does not have certified standing orders, meaning the model standing orders apply. These model orders set the retirement age at 58 years, consistent with the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

(v) Courts should not interfere with policy decisions of the Government, especially in financial matters. The Central Government's decision to set the retirement age is within its legislative and executive powers.

(vi) Employees of autonomous bodies, like the Central Silk Board, cannot claim the same benefits as Government employees, even if the Board adopts Government Service, Rules or receives Government funding. This principle was upheld by the Apex Court in several cases.

(vii) The Supreme Court in a recent case on menstrual pain leave held that it is a policy matter for the Government, not the Courts, to decide.

(viii) Casual labour and daily wagers, like TSFW, cannot claim the same rights as Government employees, as their employment is not governed by regular appointment procedures or recruitment rules.

(ix) Work-charged employees, such as TSFW, do not have permanent status and cannot claim service conditions equivalent to those of permanent Government employees.

(x) Even workers who have gained temporary status do not achieve permanent status unless selected through regular procedures.

(xi) Courts cannot impose new obligations on the parties that go beyond the existing industrial law, as held by the Apex Court.

(xii) Orders issued by the Central Government under its executive powers, like the one setting the retirement age, are binding. The labour court cannot override such decisions.

(xiii) The Central Government has been restructuring the Board by closing and mergin