Back
2010 Supreme(Ker) 196
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N. RAVINDRAN
Devaki. M & Others
Versus
The Managing Director Personal Officer & Others
WA.Nos. 159, 167 & 168 of 2010
Decided on : 16-03-2010
For the Petitioners:A.R. Gangadas, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.S. Brijesh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities have the jurisdiction to consider relevant factors such as model standing orders, fairness, and reasonableness in allowing the enhancement of retirement age.
Headnote:
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act - Retirement Age - 55 years to 58 years - Ext.P10 order of the Certifying Officer and Ext.P14 order of the Appellate Authority - The court allowed the enhancement of retirement age from 55 to 58 years, considering the model standing orders, fairness, and reasonableness. The court also considered the financial condition of the company and the transferability of employees to different units. The judgment was reversed, and the Writ Petition was dismissed, reinstating terminated workers and awarding back wages.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the retirement age of employees in an industrial establishment. The management and workmen had entered into settlements governing the service conditions, including the retirement age. The workmen demanded an increase in the retirement age from 55 to 58 years, which was contested by the management. The Certifying Officer allowed the enhancement, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The management filed a Writ Petition, challenging the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities had considered relevant factors such as model standing orders, fairness, and reasonableness in allowing the enhancement of retirement age. The court also addressed the financial condition of the company and the transferability of employees to different units. The judgment was reversed, and the Writ Petition was dismissed, reinstating terminated workers and awarding back wages.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the enhancement of retirement age, the financial condition of the company, and the transferability of employees to different units.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities had considered relevant factors and acted within their jurisdiction in allowing the enhancement of retirement age. The court also found no merit in the management's plea regarding financial difficulty and transferability of employees.
Final Decision: The judgment was reversed, and the Writ Petition was dismissed. Terminated workers were reinstated and awarded back wages.
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
Writ Appeal Nos.159 and 168 of 2010 are filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.24729 of 2006 dated 24.11.2009, quashing Ext.P10 order of the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, to the extent it is challenged and Ext.P14 order of the Appellate Authority under the said Act. W.A.No.167 of 2010 is filed against the order dated 7.12.2009 in R.P.No.1188 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.24729 of 2006.
2. W.A.No.168 of 2010 is treated as the main case, for the purpose of referring to the parties and exhibits. The brief facts of the case are the following : The first respondent/writ petitioner is the Managing Director of an industrial establishment, which is running three of its units at Palakkad. The age of superannuation of the employees of the said units, is 55 years. The service conditions of the workmen of the units are governed by the settlements entered into between the management and the workmen, from time to time. The age of superannuation of the employees is governed by the Certified Standing Orders, Ext.P1, which was certified by the Certifying Officer, in 1968. Clause 48 of the said settlement, governs the age of retirement. The said clause reads as follows :-
"48. Every workman shall retire from service on attaining the age of fifty five. Extension, if any, not exceeding one year at a time but not exceeding three years in all, may be given at the discretion of the management."
Ext.P9 settlement between the management and the workmen concerning the terms of employment was concluded on 15.2.1999. The settlement was to remain in force from 1.7.1998 to 30.6.2002, that is, for a period of four years. The workmen, represented by their unions, filed charter of demands before the management, on the expiry of the said settlement, claiming revision of wages and other service benefits. They also demanded enhancement of retirement age from 55 to 58. While the negotiations were pending, the first appellant preferred Ext.P5 application dated 29.8.2003 before the Certifying Officer under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for modification of Clause 48 of Ext.P1 and enhancement of age of superannuation to 58 years. Claiming the very same relief, Ext.P6 petition dated 15.9.2003, was filed by the second appellant, before the said officer. The management filed an objection in those petitions, mainly contending that the products of the industrial units of the first respondent at Palakkad were precision instruments and therefore, good health and good eye-sight were essential for the workmen. The relevant portion of the said objection reads as follows :-
"It is submitted that the petitioner has not made out any valid ground for modifying the standing orders, which has been in force for nearly 40 years. The retirement age of 55 was fixed taking into account the nature of the job performed by the workers. Being an industry engaged in the manufacture of precision electronic instruments, a high degree of skill and dexterity is required on the part of the workers. The job requires good eyesight, nimbleness of the fingers, good memory and speed. As one gets older, the above attributes begin to diminish and this affects the efficiency of the workers. It is submitted that any further enhancement in the age of retirement of the workers will adversely affect the quality and output of the products manufactured by the establishment."
The Certifying Officer considered the rival contentions and allowed the applications, by Ext.P10 order dated 29.9.2004.
3. The relevant portion of Ext.P10 order of the Certifying Officer reads as follows :-
"Point No.(1)
Among other things it is necessary to consider (1) whether the modification proposed is in conformity with the model standing orders issued by the Government and (2) whether this is fair and reasonable or not. Sub Clause 3 of clause 3(A) of the model standing orders relating to a
