Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Letters Patent Appeal and Cross Objection against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.5247 of 1990. The dispute arose between Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. (the employer) and the Engineering Workers Association (the union) regarding the retirement age of workmen. The employer had certified standing orders which prescribed a retirement age of 58 years, but the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 prescribed 60 years. The union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice by reducing the retirement age from 60 to 58 years. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the certified standing orders were binding. The union then filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who held that the age of retirement should be 60 years as per the Model Standing Orders, and that the reduction constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The employer appealed, and the union filed cross objections. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the Model Standing Orders, being more beneficial to the workmen, should prevail over the certified standing orders. The court reasoned that the employer's unilateral reduction of retirement age without consultation amounted to an unfair labour practice. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross objections were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Reduction of Retirement Age - Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer reduced the retirement age of workmen from 60 to 58 years without consultation with the union. The Industrial Court held it was not an unfair labour practice, but the High Court reversed, holding that the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which prescribe 60 years as retirement age, are more beneficial and must prevail. The reduction was held to be an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reduction of retirement age of workmen from 60 to 58 years by the employer constitutes an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and whether the Model Standing Orders prescribing 60 years as retirement age should prevail over the certified standing orders.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and disposed of the Cross Objections, upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the retirement age of workmen is 60 years as per Model Standing Orders and that the employer committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Law Points
- Model Standing Orders prevail over certified standing orders if they are more beneficial to workmen
- Reduction of retirement age without consultation amounts to unfair labour practice
- Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
Case Details
Letters Patent Appeal No.77 of 2005 with Cross Objections (St) No.16071 of 2005
Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S.Shetty i/by Crawford Bayley & Co., for the appellants; Ms.Nayana Buch with Mr.Shailesh More, for the respondents and for the appellants in Cross Objection
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Engineering Workers Association & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of Single Judge in writ petition concerning unfair labour practice complaint regarding retirement age of workmen.
Remedy Sought
The respondent union sought a declaration that reduction of retirement age from 60 to 58 years was an unfair labour practice and that retirement age should be 60 years as per Model Standing Orders.
Filing Reason
The employer reduced the retirement age of workmen from 60 to 58 years, which the union alleged was an unfair labour practice.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court dismissed the union's complaint. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Industrial Court's order and holding that retirement age is 60 years and that the employer committed unfair labour practice.
Issues
Whether the reduction of retirement age from 60 to 58 years constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the Model Standing Orders prescribing 60 years as retirement age prevail over certified standing orders prescribing 58 years.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that certified standing orders are binding and the reduction was valid.
Respondent union argued that Model Standing Orders are more beneficial and should prevail, and reduction without consultation is unfair labour practice.
Ratio Decidendi
Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, being more beneficial to workmen, prevail over certified standing orders. Unilateral reduction of retirement age without consultation amounts to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents Union, by holding that the age of retirement is to be treated as 60 years, as provided in the Model Standing Orders.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Industrial Court by holding that the appellant company has committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Procedural History
The respondent union filed a complaint before the Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The union filed Writ Petition No.5247 of 1990 before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 09-06-2004. The employer filed Letters Patent Appeal No.77 of 2005, and the union filed Cross Objections (St) No.16071 of 2005. The Division Bench heard the appeal and cross objections and delivered judgment on 06-06-2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Item 9 of Schedule IV
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Model Standing Orders
