Form No. J(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha And The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta F.M.A No. 75 of 2020 The Hindustan Cables Worker’s Union & Ors.

Versus The Union of India & Ors.

MAT 254 of 2020 M/s . Hindustan Cables Limited & Anr.

Vs.

M/s. Hindustan Cables Worker’s Union & Ors.

For the Appellant :Mr. L.K. Gupta, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Adv.

For the Union of India :Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Ms. Puspita Bhowmick, Adv.

For the Respondent nos. 4, 5, & 6 :Mr. ParthaSarathi Sengupta, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rohit Das, Adv.

Ms. Kishwar Rahman, Adv.

Heard on : 21st February, 2025. Judgment on : 28th February, 2025.

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.:

1. The present appeal MAT 254 of 2020 has been carried from a judgment and order dated 13th September 2019 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3303 of 2015.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Learned Single Bench has held that the change of the retirement age from 60 to 58 years of the workmen of the Rupnarayanpur Unit of the appellant is vitiated by applying the principle of procedural ultra vires, since the notice impugned dated 24th December 2013, was not issued by the management in Form E prescribed under Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 (Rules of 1957), and hence violated Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947).

3. Yet another appeal FMA 75 of 2020 has been preferred against the selfsame judgment impugned, by the workmen’s union prior thereto. The workmen contended that the learned Single Judge, having recognized that the change in terms and conditions of service of the workmen was illegal, has erroneously declined consequential benefits to the workmen i.e. additional closure and or other benefits.

The Facts of the Case

4. The facts relevant to the case are that on 6th July 1964 certified industrial standing orders were published by the management M/s. Hindustan Cables Limited (HCL) where it was specified that the age of superannuation of the workmen would be 58 years. It was further specified that the service of the workmen could be extended, at the discretion of the management, by 1 year each, for a maximum period of period of 2 years.

5. On the 7th June 1974, a Tri-Partite agreement was signed between the management and the workmen unions in the presence of the Additional Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, which provided that, subject to the approval of the Directors, the superannuation age of the workmen would be 60 years instead of 58 years. The validity of the agreement was to be for a period of 3 years and 2 months.

6. Sometime in January, 1977 further certified standing orders were published in respect of the workmen and the HCL, which did not specify the age of superannuation.

7. The Department of Public Enterprise, Government of India on 19th May 1998 instructed all public sector organizations like the appellant herein that the retirement age of all employees would have to be increased to 60 years from the age of 58 years. The same was reiterated by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises vide communication dated 21st August

1998 to all Central Government Public Enterprises like the appellant.

8. The Rupnarayanpur Unit of the HCL sank into financial doldrums for various reasons and was incurring huge losses. A communication dated 18th April 2001 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, directed the Chairman of the Rupnarayanpur unit of M/s. HCL for reduction of the retirement age from 60 to 58 years. Consequently, a decision to that effect was taken on 9th April, 2001 at the 276th Meeting of the Board of Directors of HCL. It was further directed that the standing orders WB Unit of the HCL must be amended in consultation with the Labour Department.

9. However, by a memorandum of Settlement between the management and the workmen of HCL dated 28th August 2001, the retir