1.

The undisputed facts leading to the filing of this writ

petition are as follows:

2.

On

13.04.1971,

the

Indian

Aluminium

Company

Limited, Belgaum works Standing Orders (for short <the Standing

Orders=) were certified as required under S. 5 of the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short <the Act,

1946=).

3.

The Indian Aluminium Company merged with Hindalco

Industries i.e., the present petitioner and as a consequence, the

standing orders certified on 13.04.1971 became applicable to the

petitioner and its workmen.

4.

The Petitioner and its Unions, over a period of time,

had entered into Long-Term Settlements which would be valid for a

: 3 :

specified time. As of 2016, the petitioner had entered into 14

settlements with the trade unions, each of which were in

subsistence for an agreed period. These settlements were entered

into to prevent the occurrence of a possible industrial dispute

between the Management and the Unions and ensure there was

industrial peace.

5.

In keeping with this practice of entering into another

Long-Term Settlement i.e., the XV settlement, negotiations

commenced with respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the recognized trade

unions. A charter of demands was submitted by the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner on 06.10.2016 and by respondent

No.3 on 01.12.2016. In these charter of demands, amongst several

other demands, one of the demands made by the Unions was that

the age of superannuation which had been fixed at 58 years in

Clause 26 of the certified standing orders should be enhanced to 60

years.

6.

The Management also submitted their proposals to the

Unions on 02.01.2017 and thereafter discussions were held between

the petitioners and the Unions ultimately all of them approached the

Deputy Labour Commissioner to join in on the discussion and the

matter was admitted into conciliation by notice dated 14.09.2017. A

: 4 :

proceeding came to be held on 20.09.2017, on which day, the

terms of understanding were finalized and the XV settlement was

thus arrived at. The settlement was reduced in the form of a

memorandum and was also signed by the petitioner and the three

Unions. The memorandum containing the terms of the settlement

were set forth by way of 17 Articles. The Memorandum of

Settlement also indicated that it had been entered into under S.

18(3) read with S. 12 (3) of the ID Act.

7.

Even as these charter of demands were being

deliberated upon by the petitioner and the Unions, on 27.03.2017,

the State of Karnataka, in the exercise of its powers conferred

under S. 15 of the Act, 1946 amended the two model standing

orders that it had set out in Schedule I to the Karnataka

Employment (Standing Orders) Rules. These model standing orders

related to <Workmen excluding clerks and other Ministerial staff=

and to <Clerks and other Ministerial staff=.

8.

By this amendment to the model standing orders, the

age of retirement prescribed as 58 years in the model standing

orders was substituted as 60 years for both <Workmen= and also for

<Clerks and Ministerial staff=. Thus, the model standing orders

: 5 :

prescribed by the Act in respect of the State of Karnataka, the age

of retirement became 60 years instead of 58 years.

9.

It is to be stated here that though a demand had been

made for enhancement of the retirement age in the charter of

demands, the settlement was, admittedly, silent in respect of the

demand that had been made for enhancing the retirement age from

58 years to 60 years. It was not even stated in the settlement as to

whether the said demand had been considered or deliberated upon,

let alone, state whether it had been granted or refused.

10.

The respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the recognized unions,

about six months after the settlement, made an application on

14.03.2018 to the certifying authority for modification of the

existing standing orders. By this application, a request was made to

modify Clause 26 of the standing orders relating to the age of

retirement. The request was to enhance