High Court of Karnataka Examines Whether Settlement Under Industrial Disputes Act Bars Modification of Standing Orders. Court Analyzes Interplay Between Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

The writ petition challenged the validity of the appellate authority's order confirming the certifying authority's modification of certified standing orders to enhance the retirement age from 58 to 60 years.

The petitioner (Management) sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner dated 05.12.2019 and to dismiss the unions' application for modification.

The management contended that the unions had raised the demand for enhanced retirement age during bilateral negotiations and in conciliation, but the resulting settlement did not grant it, and the settlement barred raising any demand during its currency; further, the amendment to the model standing orders was challenged separately and the management had various other objections.

The certifying authority allowed the modification; the appellate authority dismissed the management's appeal; the management's writ petition against the amendment to model standing orders (W.P. Nos.16100-103/2017) was dismissed, and the subsequent writ appeal was withdrawn.

Whether the application for modification of certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 was barred by the previous settlement under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, given that the demand for enhanced retirement age was raised but not granted in the settlement? Whether the certifying authority and appellate authority correctly exercised their jurisdiction in modifying the standing orders to increase the retirement age to 60 years in the absence of specific objections on merits from the management?

Petitioner: The unions' demand for enhancement was part of the charter of demands; the settlement did not grant it, meaning it was refused; under the Barauni Refinery principle, a refused demand becomes part of the settlement and cannot be revived; the settlement was binding till 31.03.2020, so no demand could be raised until then; the standing orders are always subject to settlements; modification proceedings cannot circumvent the settlement. Petitioner: The management had challenged the amendment to model standing orders; there would be lack of uniformity in retirement ages across units as employees are transferable; the amendment does not automatically apply to establishments with certified standing orders; increasing retirement age affects youth employment. Respondents: The modification proceeding under the 1946 Act is independent of the charter of demands and settlement under the ID Act; the management did not raise any specific objection on the merits of enhancing retirement age before the certifying authority; the certifying authority rightly considered factors like increased life expectancy; the withdrawal of the challenge to model standing orders disentitles the management from opposing modification. Respondents: The certifying and appellate authorities had taken a considered view, and there is no ground for interference under Article 226.

The certifying authority took the view that there was justification in the demand given the increase in life expectancy in the country and also similar increase in the retirement ages had been adopted in various undertakings of the State and the Union. The authority also took the view the management would also benefit from the experience of the employees who had rendered long service, and this was also the rationale behind the modification of the model standing orders by the State. It may however be pertinent to state here that in its objections before the certifying authority the petitioner did not object to the increase in the retirement age on the ground that the increase would hamper the productivity of the establishment or that it was undesirable to have elderly employees working in the establishment having regard to the nature of the industry and the work involved in the establishment. 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...

The Indian Aluminium Company Limited's (now Hindalco) standing orders were certified on 13.04.1971. Over time, multiple long-term settlements were entered into with trade unions. In 2016, the unions submitted charter of demands including enhancement of retirement age. On 27.03.2017, the State amended model standing orders raising retirement age to 60. Despite this, the XV settlement concluded in conciliation on 20.09.2017 under Sections 12(3) and 18(3) of the ID Act, but did not address the retirement age demand. On 14.03.2018, the unions applied to the certifying authority for modification of Clause 26 of the standing orders. The certifying authority allowed the modification. The management's appeal under Section 6 was dismissed by the appellate authority on 05.12.2019. The present writ petition was filed challenging that order. Meanwhile, the management's independent challenge to the model standing order amendment (W.P. Nos.16100-103/2017) was dismissed by the High Court; a writ appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the management.

• Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: 5, 6, 15
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 12(3), 18(3)
• Constitution of India: 226, 227