Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T. Sathiadev, S. Mohan, JJ.
PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT AND OTHERS - Respondent
Decided On : 20-07-1979
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - AGE OF SUPERANNUATION - COMPULSORY RETIREMENT - CASUAL LEAVE - PERIOD OF PROBATION - APPRENTICES - UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE - SENIORITY LIST - FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF PROVISIONS - JURISDICTION OF CERTIFYING OFFICER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited filed a writ petition challenging the common order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948, which revised the age of retirement for all categories of personnel to 58 years, deleted the provision for compulsory retirement as a measure of punishment, provided for casual leave of ten days in a calendar year, fixed the period of probation at six months for all categories of workmen, fixed a 5% quota for apprentices in each category of workmen, modified the provision regarding unauthorized absence, and provided for a single seniority list for workmen in all three units.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Appellate Authority erred in fixing the same age of superannuation for all categories of employees, and in so far as the clerical and administrative staff are concerned, the age of superannuation can be only 55 years. 2. The Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to fix the age of superannuation, as it is a matter relating to conditions of employment. 3. Compulsory retirement is a concept alien to industrial relations and cannot be inducted into the service conditions of industrial employees. 4. The provision for casual leave is fair and reasonable, and the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to make such a provision. 5. The fixation of the period of probation at six months for all categories of workmen is fair and reasonable. 6. The fixation of a 5% quota for apprentices in each category of workmen is fair and reasonable. 7. The modification of the provision regarding unauthorized absence is fair and reasonable. 8. The provision for a single seniority list for workmen in all three units is fair and reasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in fixing the same age of superannuation for all categories of employees. 2. Whether the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to fix the age of superannuation. 3. Whether compulsory retirement is a concept alien to industrial relations. 4. Whether the provision for casual leave is fair and reasonable. 5. Whether the fixation of the period of probation at six months for all categories of workmen is fair and reasonable. 6. Whether the fixation of a 5% quota for apprentices in each category of workmen is fair and reasonable. 7. Whether the modification of the provision regarding unauthorized absence is fair and reasonable. 8. Whether the provision for a single seniority list for workmen in all three units is fair and reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The age of superannuation for clerical and administrative staff cannot be revised during the period of a settlement that has fixed the age of superannuation. 2. The Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority have jurisdiction to fix the age of superannuation, as it is a matter relating to conditions of employment. 3. Compulsory retirement is a concept alien to industrial relations and cannot be inducted into the service conditions of industrial employees. 4. The provision for casual leave is fair and reasonable, and the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to make such a provision. 5. The fixation of the period of probation at six months for all categories of workmen is fair and reasonable. 6. The fixation of a 5% quota for apprentices in each category of workmen is fair and reasonable. 7. The modification of the provision regarding unauthorized absence is fair and reasonable. 8. The provision for a single seniority list for workmen in all three units is fair and reasonable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the limited extent that the age of superannuation for clerical and administrative staff covered by Ext. M.2 cannot be revised during the period of the settlement. All other points taken by the Corporation were rejected.
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed by Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, against the common order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948 in Appeal Nos. 1 to 7 of 1977. The petitioner herein had preferred Appeal No. 1 of 1977 against the order made by the Certifying Officer, being the second respondent herein, whereas Appeal Nos. 2 to 7 of 1977 were filed by the same unions objecting to certain clauses in the Standing Orders, certified under order dated 10.6.1977.
2. The petitioner submitted draft Standing Orders on 24.5.1976 to be effective from 1.7.72 and in the draft Standing Orders, comprehensive provisions have been contemplated in respect of the service conditions of the employees.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner, among other grounds, disputes about the provisions made in the Standing Orders in respect of superannuation Compulsory Retirement, Casual leave, confirmation of probation, Recruitment of Apprentices, Unauthorised absence, Scope of misconduct, Punishments to be imposed and determination of seniority. In the forefront, the fixation of age of retirement at 58 for all categories of personnel in the petitioners establishment is challenged in this petition. In the draft Standing Orders, it was proposed to fix the age of retirement at 55 years whereas the Certifying Officer fixed it at 58 for workmen and 55 for clerical and administrative staff provided the management-Corporation at its discretion may extend the period of service in the case of workmen or re-employ them in specific cases. The Certifying Officer fixed the age at 55 for clerical and administrative staff taking into account the settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act under Ext. M 2 dated 7.3.1977, wherein they have agreed to have the age of retirement as 55, under Clause 10 of the settlement. It has to be followed for a period of three years from 17.3.1977. First respondent, the Appellate Authority revised this provision by fixing the age of retirement at 58 years for all categories of personnel on the ground that settlement u/s 12(3) under Ext. M 2, was brought about, at a time when emergency was clamped over the country and the workmen were not free to agitate their rights and there being no justification for differentiation between workmen and clerical and administrative staff. It would not be fair and reasonable to discriminate between them. It also took into account the view of the Supreme Court that in view of the improved standard of health and increase in the longevity which has come into existence in this country, the proper age for retirement could be 60 years and the nature of work could not be characterised as so hazardous or arduous to impair their service ability and utility beyond 55 years and further even in Pandian Roadways Corporation, the retirement age having been fixed at 58 years which is not different from what is prevailing in Simpson & Group Companies and Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the fixation of age of retirement at 58 will be fair and reasonable.
4. Mr. Ramasubramanian, counsel for the petitioner would contend that administrative and clerical staff are bound by Ext. M 2 agreement in which the age of retirement had been fixed at 55 and what has been agreed to cannot be violated by seeking for a fixation of a higher age of retirement when the Standing Orders are certified ; that Cheran Transport Corporation and Cholan Roadways Corporation, which are similar transport Corporations like that of the petitioner, had provided in their Standing Orders Exts. M 3 & M 4 for the age of retirement of their workmen at 55 years and by adopting region-cum-industry basis, a different age limit cannot be prescribed; that regarding workmen under Ext. M. 1, agreement dated 1.3.1977 u/s 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, they have withdrawn several demands and one of them related to the demand for fixation of age of retirement at 58 and therefore, they cannot ask
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
