The main legal point established in the judgment is that the modification of standing orders concerning the retirement age should be certifiable, and the statutory right of the workmen to move the Certifying Officer for modification of the standing orders should be upheld.

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

Writ Appeal Nos. 159 and 168/2010 are filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 24729/2006 dated November 24, 2009, quashing Exhibit P-10 order of the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, to the extent it is challenged and Exhibit P-14 order of the Appellate Authority under the said Act. W.A. No. 167/2010 is filed against the order dated December 7, 2009 in R.P. No. 1188/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24729/2006.

2. W.A. No. 168/2010 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, Exhibit P-1, 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, pot exceeding one year at a time but not exceeding three years in all, may be given at the discretion of the management.

3. Exhibit P-9 settlement between the management and the workmen concerning the terms of employment was concluded on February 15, 1999. The settlement was to remain in force from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 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 Exhibit P-5 application dated August 29, 2003 before the Certifying Officer u/s 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for modification of Clause 48 of Exhibit P-1 and enhancement of age of superannuation to 58 years. Claiming the very same relief, Exhibit P-6 petition dated September 15, 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.

4. The Certifying Officer considered the rival contentions and allowed the applications, by Exhibit P-10 order dated September 29, 2004.

3. The relevant portion of Exhibit P-10 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.