Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the management of a company engaged in the manufacture of industrial carbon and carbon brushes, classified as a hazardous industry under Section 2(cb) of the Factories Act, 1948. The service conditions of workmen were governed by certified standing orders, last certified on 18.03.2000 fixing the retirement age at 58 years. A tripartite wage settlement was entered into with the workers' union on 13.02.2017, which was stated to be a package deal. Despite the settlement, the union submitted an application to amend the standing orders to enhance the retirement age to 60 years, with the possibility of extension to 62 years, following an amendment to the Model Standing Orders by the Government of Karnataka. The Certifying Officer allowed the application on 30.03.2019, and the Appellate Authority confirmed it on 01.12.2020. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to consider the binding nature of the wage settlement, the automatic non-applicability of amended model standing orders, and the hazardous nature of the work. Reliance was placed on the guidelines in Guest Keen Williams Pvt. Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling and decisions of the Karnataka High Court in similar matters. The judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court's analysis or final order.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority erred in amending the certified standing orders to increase the retirement age from 58 to 60 years, contrary to a binding tripartite wage settlement and without considering the hazardous nature of the industry
Law Points
- Certification of standing orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Model Standing Orders do not automatically apply
- binding nature of memorandum of wage settlement
- consideration of hazardous nature of industry under Section 2(cb) of Factories Act
- 1948
- guidelines for fixing retirement age from Guest Keen Williams Pvt. Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling
- AIR 1959 SC 1279
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (09) 24
Writ Petition No. 4114 of 2021
C.K. Subramanya for petitioner; Bhoje Gouda T. Koller, AGA for R1 and R2; H.K. Nagabhushan for R3
The Management of M/s Mersen India Pvt. Ltd.
1. The Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Certifying Office under the IE(SO) Act, Region 2, Bengaluru; 2. The Additional Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations) and the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Bengaluru; 3. Mersen India Pvt. Ltd., Workers' Union
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging orders amending certified standing orders to increase retirement age from 58 to 60 years
Remedy Sought
Quash orders dated 30.03.2019 and 01.12.2020 passed by the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority respectively
Filing Reason
The authorities amended the standing orders to enhance retirement age despite a binding tripartite wage settlement and without considering the hazardous nature of the industry
Previous Decisions
Certifying Officer allowed the application on 30.03.2019; Appellate Authority confirmed it on 01.12.2020
Issues
Whether the Certifying Officer and Appellate Authority erred in amending the certified standing orders to increase retirement age contrary to the binding tripartite wage settlement dated 13.02.2017
Whether the authorities failed to consider the hazardous nature of the industry under Section 2(cb) of the Factories Act, 1948 while enhancing the retirement age
Whether the amendment to Model Standing Orders automatically applies to the petitioner's establishment without a separate agreement
Submissions/Arguments
The authorities did not consider that the tripartite wage settlement was a package deal and binding, and any amendment during its subsistence would have adverse impact
Amendment to Model Standing Orders does not automatically apply; certification requires consideration of all relevant aspects including the settlement
The industry is hazardous under Section 2(cb) of the Factories Act, and increasing retirement age could be harmful; this was not considered
The guidelines laid down in Guest Keen Williams Pvt. Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling were not followed
Reliance on previous decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Wipro Infrastructure Engineering and Grasim Industries cases where similar orders were set aside
The Certifying Officer must inspect the premises and record evidence if needed before modifying standing orders
Judgment Excerpts
The Standing Orders were last certified by the Certifying Officer on 18.03.2000 where the age of retirement was enhanced from 55 years to 58 years which is also confirmed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 14.11.2002 and by this Court in W.P.No.45985/2002 on 10.07.2007.
This Settlement has been entered into as a Package Deal in full and final settlement of all the demands raised by the Union in the Charter of Demands dated 05.1.2016.
The petitioner contends that despite the settlement, the respondent No.3-Union had submitted an amendment to the existing Standing Orders seeking for enhancement of the retirement age to 60 years and if need be upto 62 years.
If the Certifying Officer were permitted to certify the Standing Orders contrary to the Binding Agreements, there would be no purpose in arriving at a settlement.
Procedural History
Certified Standing Orders last certified on 18.03.2000 fixing retirement age at 58 years; confirmed by Appellate Authority on 14.11.2002 and by High Court on 10.07.2007. Tripartite Wage Settlement dated 13.02.2017. Union applied for amendment to enhance retirement age; Certifying Officer allowed on 30.03.2019. Management appealed; Appellate Authority confirmed on 01.12.2020. Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946:
- Factories Act, 1948: 2(cb)
- Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226 and 227
