Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the retirement of a workman employed by the appellant company in 1946 as a clerk in its Service Department. At the time of his employment, no rule prescribed the age of retirement. In November 1951, the appellant introduced standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, fixing the age of superannuation at 55 years. The standing orders were modified in May 1961, but the retirement age remained unchanged. On November 27, 1961, the appellant issued a notice stating that the second respondent would retire on August 31, 1962, upon attaining 55 years. The employees' union submitted a charter of demands on August 11, 1962, seeking to raise the retirement age, and requested that the second respondent's retirement be kept in abeyance. The appellant retired the second respondent on September 1, 1962. The Government of West Bengal referred the industrial dispute to the Second Industrial Tribunal on January 29, 1963. The Tribunal by award dated April 27, 1964 held that the retirement was unjustified because the second respondent was not bound by the standing orders as he was employed before they came into force, and directed his reinstatement. The Tribunal also raised the retirement age for all categories of workmen from 55 to 58 years. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court seeking certiorari to quash the award insofar as it directed reinstatement. A single judge, following the decision in Guest Keen Williams, held that the standing orders did not bind the second respondent, dismissed the writ petition, but modified the relief to payment of salary from the date of actual retirement until the date he attained 58 years. The Division Bench upheld the single judge. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was erroneous in light of later decisions in Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Shri Alladin, Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Employees' Union, and United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Chatterjee, which established that certified standing orders bind all workmen, irrespective of their date of employment. The Court further held that the second respondent could not be allowed to raise a new plea before the Supreme Court that the award's enhanced retirement age of 58 justified his reinstatement, as this ground was not raised in his counter-affidavit before the High Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and upheld the appellant's contention that the standing orders governed the retirement age of the second respondent.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Standing Orders - Applicability to Pre-existing Workmen - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Standing orders fixing age of retirement at 55 introduced in 1951; workman employed in 1946 contended not bound; Court held certified standing orders bind all workmen irrespective of date of employment; High Court's contrary view based on Guest Keen Williams no longer good law in light of later Supreme Court decisions; Held standing orders bind pre-existing employees (Pages 671-672). B) Labour Law - Reinstatement - Grounds for Challenging Award - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 18(3) - Second respondent sought to support reinstatement on ground that award raised retirement age to 58, making his retirement invalid; Court refused to permit new plea not raised in High Court counter-affidavit; Held respondent cannot raise new plea for first time in Supreme Court (Pages 673-674). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Scope of Interference with Industrial Award - Constitution of India, Article 133(1)(c) - Appeal by certificate from High Court order refusing to quash award; Supreme Court set aside High Court order and allowed appeal; Held High Court erred in law (Page 671).
Issue of Consideration
Whether certified standing orders fixing age of retirement bind workmen employed prior to their introduction; whether respondent can support award reinstating him on plea of enhanced retirement age not raised in High Court
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside; Supreme Court held that certified standing orders bind pre-existing workmen, and rejected the second respondent's new plea that enhanced retirement age justified reinstatement; no direction for reinstatement or salary was sustained.
Law Points
- Certified standing orders bind all workmen irrespective of date of employment
- A party cannot raise a new plea for the first time in Supreme Court
- Industrial award fixing enhanced retirement age does not automatically invalidate prior retirement unless raised timely
