JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. These writ petitions were earlier decided by a common judgment and order dated 24.2.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the matters were remanded back to Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

2. Being aggrieved, the Supervisors Association preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 1206-1208 of 2017 (Civil Appeal No. (s) 9382-9384 of 2017) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which were decided on 23.2.2018 with the request to the High Court to hear the writ petitions on merit. The relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter:

"The only dispute remaining to be decided is whether the Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents would be workmen or not. There are already two conflicting views of the Labour Courts. In the above circumstances, we do not find any justification for the High Court remitting the matter again to the Labour Court on the issue. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. We direct the High Court to decide the issue finally in the true spirit of the order dated 14.9.2010, as explained by us above on the basis of the materials available on record."

3. The facts in brief which are necessary to decide the issue involved in all these writ petitions are as follows:

(a) The petitioner-Duncan Industries Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, having its factory at Kanpur, which manufactures fertilizers commonly known as UREA. The company has different categories of employees comprising of Management staff, Deputy Superintendents/Supervisors and workman. In the year 1978, the age of retirement of workman of the petitioner-company was raised to 60 years subject to their being medically fit, in pursuance of settlement/agreement dated 7.2.1978 entered between the Management and the Union of Workman. As per the case of the petitioner-company, the said settlement/agreement was not made applicable to Supervisors/Deputy Superintendents of the company on the ground that they were not workman.

(b) The Management of the company took decisions on various issues after/meeting with the representatives of I.E.L. Supervisors' Association, Kanpur on 28.5.1985 including the decision regarding the retirement age of the Supervisor which remained unaltered at 58 years.

(c) The I.E.L. Supervisors' Association claimed that their age of superannuation should be fixed as 60 years as done in the case of workman and raised a industrial dispute which finally referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947') to the Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P. Kanpur and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 11 of 1988. The term of the reference of the said industrial dispute was as follows:

"Kya Sevayojakon Dwara Apne Pratishlhan Ke Sabhi Deputy Superintendents Evam Supervisors Ki Seva Nivriti Aayu 58 Varsha Ke Sthan Par Shramikon Ki Bhanti 60 Varsha Na Kama Uchit Tatha Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahin to Sambhandhit Shramik Kya Laabh/Anutosh Relief Pane Ke Adhikari Hai Tatha Anya Kis Vivran Sahtt?"

(d) The industrial dispute was contested by the rival parties and written statements, rejoinder affidavits were also exchanged. Statements of witnesses of both side were recorded and they were cross-examined also. The Industrial Tribunal after considering the material and submissions, passed an award dated 29.4.1999, whereby it was held that the Deputy Superintendents/Supervisors are also entitled for increase of their retirement age from 58 years to 60 years as done in the case of workman.

(e) The Industrial Tribunal (III) sent the award for the publication on 30.7.1999 to the State, however the same was recalled by the Tribunal before publication and the matter was posted for re-hearing.

(f) Being aggrieved, the I.E.L. Supervisory has filed Writ Petition No. 39403 of 1999 with the prayer for publication of