Claim of petitioner to continue in employment up to the age of 58 years.

1. The petitioner in these three writ petitions is the Pallavan Transport Corporation (Metro) Madras. The second respondent in each of these three writ petitions was a workman under the petitioner and they shall hereinafter be referred to as the workmen. The petitioner superannuated the workmen on their attaining the age of 55 years as per the details given below.

1. 30.6.1977 Krishnan Second Respondent in WP 2630/83.

2. 31.1.1978 Antony Joseph Second Respondent in WP 2631/83.

3. 28.2.1978 Krishnamurthy Second Respondent in WP 2629/1983.

The workmen contended that at the relevant point of time, the prescribed model standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act XX of 1946, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were in force and as per clause 21 thereof the age of superannuation could be only 58 and hence, the Orders of superannuation passed by the petitioner against them are illegal and then workmen should be deemed to be in service until each one of them attained the age of 58. The petitioner would maintain a stand that clause 11 of the Service Rules, under which the age of superannuation was fixed at 55, would govern and hence the orders of superannuation must be upheld and in any event, the workmen received the benefits of retirement and therefore, they cannot be permitted to project the present stand. Naturally, industrial disputes were raised and they were referred for adjudication to the first respondent. In I.D. No. 391 of 1980, workman Krishnan (Second Respondent in W.P. No. 2630/1983) was the claimant and in I.D. No. 447 of 1980, workmen Antony Joseph (Second Respondent in W.P. No. 2631 of 1983) and Krishnamurthy (Second Respondent in W.P. No. 2629 of 1983) were the claimants. The first respondent adjudicated, the matter and came to the conclusion that the model standing orders prescribed under the Act would govern and hence, the orders of superannuation passed against the workmen cannot be sustained and the workmen must be deemed to be in service until they attained the age of 58 and since by the time the awards came to be rendered the workmen had already attained the age of 58, they were held to be entitled to all the benefits on the said basis. W.P. No. 2629 and 2631 of 1983 are directed against the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 447 of 1980 and W.P. No. 2630 of 1983 is directed against the award of the first respondent in I.D. No. 391 of 1980.

2. Before I deal with the submission made by Mr. M. R. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, impugning the awards passed by the first respondent, there is a necessity to refer to a few aspects which may be germane to complete the factual picture. That the petitioner is an industrial establishment to which the Act applies, is not being disputed before me. The petitioner did submit draft Standing Orders as per S. 3 of the Act on 24th May, 1976 to the Certifying Officer and the order of the Certifying Officer was passed on 10th June, 1977 under S. 5 of the Act. There was an appeal under S. 6 of the Act and the order of the Appellate Authority was passed on 27th June, 1978. The petitioner agitated the matter with regard to various provisions in the Standing Orders certified by the Certifying Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, in W.P. No. 2523/78, which was heard and disposed of by a Bench of this Court, consisting of Mohan and Sathiadev, J.J., by order dated 20th July, 1979. Vide Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., v. Appellate Authority [1979-II L.L.J. 262]. The learned Judges except with regard to clerical and administrative staff covered by a settlement under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not vary the Standing Orders.

3. S. 7 of the Act speaks about the date of operation of the Standing Orders and since, in the present case, an appeal was preferred, it would become normally operative on the expiry of the seven days from the date on which copies of the order of the Appellate Authority are sent und