Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, operated two independent industrial establishments: the Hosur Road unit and the Bull Temple Road unit (formerly Nippon Electronics). The Bull Temple Road unit was amalgamated under a court order in 1984 but retained separate certified standing orders. The Bull Temple Road unit's standing orders prescribed a retirement age of 55 years, while the Hosur Road unit's prescribed 58 years. The respondent, an employee of the Bull Temple Road unit, was retired at 55 years effective 14 May 2005. The Government of Karnataka endorsed the retirement as lawful under the applicable standing orders. The respondent challenged the retirement by raising an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, and registered as ID No. 42/2007. On 03 July 2013, the Industrial Tribunal passed an award holding that the retirement at 55 was not justified and that the respondent was entitled to retire at 58 years as per the Hosur Road unit's standing orders. Aggrieved, the petitioner-company filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the tribunal's award. The petitioner argued that the two units were separate industrial establishments with distinct certified standing orders, and the amalgamation did not merge the standing orders; thus, the respondent could not claim the higher retirement age. The petitioner cited precedents including Bharat Electronics Limited v. Chief Labour Commissioner (1996) 2 LLJ 193, Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. BEL Head Office Staff Association ILR 2000 KAR 1002, and Raju M.C. v. Executive Director, Karnataka Vidyuth Kharkhane Ltd. ILR 1983 KAR 189, stressing that separate units under the same company may have separate standing orders. The court heard arguments and reserved orders on 28 July 2022, and pronounced its order on 06 September 2022. The final decision was not mentioned in the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in applying the certified standing orders of the Hosur Road unit to the employee of the Bull Temple Road unit, treating them as a single industrial establishment for retirement age despite separate standing orders.
Law Points
- Certified Standing Orders
- separate industrial establishments
- amalgamation
- retirement age
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act
- 1946
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (09) 33
Writ Petition No. 58467 of 2013 (L-RES)
Sri S.N. Murthy, Senior Counsel for Sri Somashekar (Petitioner); Sri Rudrappa P (Respondent)
M/s Stumpp Schuele & Somappa Pvt. Ltd., Electronics Division, represented by its General Manager-HR & Admin., Sri K. Narayana
Sri Basavaraja M, S/o Late Sri Narasimhaiah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute regarding age of retirement – employee of Bull Temple Road unit claimed retirement at 58 years based on Hosur Road unit’s standing orders, while employer maintained 55 years as per Bull Temple Road unit’s own standing orders.
Remedy Sought
Writ of certiorari to quash the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 03.07.2013 in ID No. 42/2007.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Tribunal held that the employer was not justified in retiring the employee at 55 years and that he was entitled to 58 years, applying the standing orders of a different unit.
Previous Decisions
The Government of Karnataka, by endorsement dated 31.03.2006, upheld the retirement at 55 as valid under the relevant standing orders. The Industrial Tribunal subsequently set aside the retirement.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in treating the Bull Temple Road unit and Hosur Road unit as a single industrial establishment for retirement age, thereby applying the Hosur Road unit’s certified standing orders to the respondent employee.
Whether the government’s endorsement confirming retirement at 55 was binding and should have precluded the tribunal from holding otherwise.
Submissions/Arguments
The two units are separate industrial establishments with distinct certified standing orders; amalgamation does not merge standing orders.
An employee can only claim benefits under the standing orders applicable to his unit, not another unit’s orders.
The government endorsement had already found the retirement lawful, and the tribunal should have considered it.
The tribunal failed to produce settlement agreements to support its conclusion and erred in reversing the retirement.
Precedents such as Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. Chief Labour Commissioner and Raju M.C. v. Executive Director support maintaining separate standing orders for separate establishments.
Judgment Excerpts
In terms of Clause 19 of the CSO of Nippon, the age of retirement was fixed as 55 years whereas in terms of the CSO of the Hosur Road Unit, the age of retirement was fixed as 58 years.
Merely because there is an amalgamation of two industrial establishments, the worker from one industrial establishment cannot avail the higher retirement age available in the CSOs of another industrial establishment.
That a Company may be having different factories and different activities, each of the factories could have separate CSOs. Merely because the owner of the industrial establishment is one and the same, the Standing Orders will not become one and the same.
Procedural History
The respondent was employed at Nippon Electronics, which amalgamated with the petitioner-company in 1984. The respondent was retired at 55 years effective 14 May 2005, as per the Bull Temple Road unit’s standing orders. The Government of Karnataka, by endorsement dated 31 March 2006, upheld the retirement. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, as ID No. 42/2007. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 3 July 2013, holding the retirement unjustified and directing compliance with the Hosur Road unit’s standing orders. The petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the award. The High Court heard arguments and reserved orders on 28 July 2022, and pronounced its order on 6 September 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946:
- Companies Act, 1956:
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
