The court affirmed existing employee benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, maintaining retirement age at 60 and rejecting unjustified pension scheme modifications by management.

ORDER :

1. These three Writ Petitions are connected and, as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

A. The Factual Matrix:

2. The factual background in which these Writ Petitions arise is that the Government of India set up a petroleum refinery unit, currently known as ‘Chennai Petrochemicals Limited’ at Manali. As a result, several private persons also established related units in and around Manali to make use of available chemicals and by-products and to benefit from Manali's proximity to the port. The petitioner management, namely Manali Petrochemicals Limited, was one such unit started in 1990, dealing with products such as Propylene Oxide, Propylene Glycol, and Polyol.

2.1. In the same year, another company named UB Petroproducts Limited was also established, which competed with the petitioner – management. In 1997, it was stated that UB Petroproducts Limited was taken over by Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited and was renamed SPIC Organics Limited (shortened as ‘SPIC’). It is important to note that SPIC is the major shareholder of the petitioner - management, namely Manali Petrochemicals Limited, which is part of the SPIC group of companies.

2.2. In the year 2000, the second company mentioned above, namely SPIC, was also merged with the petitioner-management by an order of this Court in C.P.No.581 of 2000 dated 20.12.2000. Thereafter, the original Manali Petrochemicals Limited was referred to as Plant -1, and the merged company’s unit was called Plant -2. Under these circumstances, as was the regular practice, a wage revision was effected through a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the Act’), which was entered into on 09.09.1999, covering the period of four years from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.2000.

2.3. Since a merger also took place in the same year, it appears that the workmen and management did not enter into any Section 12 (3) settlement for the wage revision. Manali Petrochemicals Employees Union submitted a charter of demands, which included a wage revision for the period from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2004 on 01.04.2000. On 13.12.2002, the management proposed to alter the service conditions by issuing a notice under Section 9A of the Act, concerning both Plant -1 and Plant -2, which included reducing the retirement age from 60 to 58 years, reducing casual leave from 10 to 7 days, sick leave from 15 to 7 days, and ordinary leave from 24 to 22 days. Another notice regarding Plant -2 was issued. It was proposed to alter the pension scheme, while in Plant -1, there was a pension scheme operated by the trust established under the scheme known as ‘Defined Pension Scheme’, under which the pension was calculated as follows:-

2.4. By the 9A notice, it was decided to change the above ‘Defined Pension Scheme’ to a ‘Defined Contribution Scheme’, under which 12% of basic pay will be contributed to LIC, and a pension will be paid based on the scheme. Similarly, with reference to Plant–2, which was already under a defined contribution scheme where 10% of Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance was Contributed, it was also proposed to make this contribution 12% of basic pay alone.

2.5. On 03.01.2003, the union objected to the above-mentioned change in service conditions, and on 18.12.2003, a dispute was raised. Similarly, the trade unions submitted a charter of demands, including a pay