Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Saurashtra Trust Karmachari Sangh, a trade union, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 8th October 2002 passed by the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint alleging an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act). The first respondent, The State's People Private Ltd., is a company engaged in printing and publishing newspapers, established in 1933. On 8th July 1955, standing orders for employees of the first respondent were certified under Section 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The complaint was originally filed on behalf of 13 employees but survived only for two employees: Dattaram Khanwilkar and Danbahadur Dixit, who were appointed as Compositor and Line Operator respectively on 1st May 1965 and 7th April 1969. Their appointment letters specified the age of superannuation as 55 years. The union filed the complaint aggrieved by a circular of the management apprehending that acting on the circular, the employees would be retired at age 55 instead of 60. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the standing orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which fixed the superannuation age at 55, were binding and the employer's action did not constitute an unfair labour practice. The High Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the standing orders have statutory force and the employer was merely following them. The court noted that the appointment letters themselves specified 55 years as the retirement age, and the union's claim that the age was 60 was not supported by evidence. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Superannuation Age - Standing Orders - Unfair Labour Practice - Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The issue was whether the employer's circular reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 55 years amounted to an unfair labour practice. The court held that the certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which fixed the superannuation age at 55 years, were binding and the employer's action was in accordance with those standing orders. The complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable as the standing orders had statutory force and the reduction did not constitute an unfair labour practice. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reduction of superannuation age from 60 to 55 years by the employer constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The court held that the certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which fixed the superannuation age at 55 years, were binding and the employer's action did not constitute an unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Law Points
- Superannuation age
- Standing orders
- Unfair labour practice
- Item 9 Schedule IV MRTU & PULP Act
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
