DUNLOP INDIA LISTED “ v. THEIR WORKMEN March 10, 1972
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM. AND G. K. Mirter, JJ.]
Industrial Dispute—Retirement age—; . ; to fix retirement age—Workman if bound fy earonsacns ren tiralicion tC
‘he is nota member, ° represented b the union, of which all the workmen of the company were members. agreement, among other things, fixed the retirement ageat’ 55. a agreement thé Company issued a Circular in 1960 to the effect that the management will not require any employee to retire before attaining the age of 58 years. In 1961, the Company’ entered into an agreement with one of the three unions of the regarding the conditions of employment. The agreement an employee shall'retire at the age of 58. On the expiry of this ment a- fresh agreement was entered into with the same union On one of the workmen: attaining. 58. years the Company passed retiring the workman. _An. industrial dispute was raised and it was re to the Tribunal for adjudication.
The Tribunal recorded the findings that when the 1 service of' the Company in 1944 there were no Standin Orders, regulations regarding the age of retirement; that though the was bound by the 1956 agreement the Company not give | the age of: retirement of, 55 years as provided in the agreement; 1961 and. 1966. agreements were entered into with on the workman was not a member and, therefore, he was ri the agreement; and that in view of the decision of . all ao Keen, Williams Ltd. v. P. J: Sterling {1960} 1 SCR. = p.. G _ was eotitled to be in service till his attaining cg Aigner these findings the Tribunal: beld the order resein 5 oe kman and declared that be. was entitled to be reinstati till he attained the age of 60 years.
by special leave mm. Oe tee aman was bound by the — _ of 1956 3 have that. the workman was bound 1 TUG ding Orders wissen eee seus anal uve ed th OOPS Se ape in 1955 and in this view it s , the workman at 58 legal: (ii) he tribunal id have d ° 1 and 1966.binding om thens the various other benefits. conferred ect og he tribunal had no jurisdiction te Fe of 60 year.
¢ workman till he attain trial Tribune! bad to he, confirmed
HELD : That the Award of the I and the appeal dismissed.
(i) Though the workman entered framed by the . eg Bs the Standing Orders si tet esha
& ‘ gRiee
: a Bee
Be
= a s Se i Rs z q ge BE
; t LLL he
§ Selae
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1972} 3 S.C.R, in as much as he was a workman and employed at the time when the Standing Orders were certified. [748 HI
Agra Electricity Supply Co, Ltd, v. Sri Alladin and others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 808; Guest Keen Williams Private Lid, v. P. J, Sterling and others, “{1960] 1 S.C.R. 348; Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. v. Kettleweil Bullen & Co, Ltd., [1964] 2 LLJ. 146 and Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Company Lid. v. Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co, Lid. Employees’ Union, (19661 2 S.C.R. 498, referred to.
The 1956 agreement was a valid agreement and as rightly held by the Tribunal it was binding on the concerned workman, .
But, the Tribunal’s finding that the agreement of 1956 had not been given effect to is justified. From the 1960 circular and other circum- “stances it is clear that the management decided not to retire any employee before attaining the age of 58 years though the age of retirement was 55 years under the Standing Orlers framed in 1955 and under the agreement of 1956. [749 E]
The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen and Others, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 51, referred to.
(ii) The agreements of 1961 and 1966 will bind only such of the staff employees as were members of the Union which was party to the agreement. The concerned workman was not a member of. the Union ‘which was a party to the agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that he was not bound by the agreements of 1961 and 1966. And, the mere fact that an employee gets the benefit of higher wages fixed under the agreement cannot be considered to operate as a bar to his disputing the right of the management to retire him at the age of- 58 years: it is only when the clause relating to the age of retirement is sought to be enforced that he can raise a controversy, [751 H]
(iii) The Tribunai is justified in considering the question of the proper retirement age of the workman, The decisions of this Court prima facie support the view of the Tribunal that the workman was entitled to continue till he attainéd the age of 60 years. [732 E]
Guest Keen Williams Private Lid. vy. P. J. Sterling and Others, [19601 1.S.C.R. 348, Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Lid. v. Kettle» well Bullen & Co, Lid., [1964] 2 L.L.J. 146 and Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sri Alladih and others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 808, rferred to.
This Court had emphasised that industrial adjudication in India being based on industry:cumm-region basis, industrial tribunals have jurisdiction to make necessary changes in a Uniform Scheme so that it might accord wih the prevailing conditions in the region where the employees were ‘working, as the changes found necessary by the tribunal were to ensure fair conditions of service. [752 :
Further the trend in West Bengal region is to fix the age of retirement at 60 years for the clerical and subordinate staff. [753 D} .
The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. vy. Workmen and Others, [1960] 2 SCR. 51, M/s. British Paints (India) Ltd, v. Its Workmen, [1966] 2 S.C.R. 523, referred to: : ;
ga RTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1490 of
DUNLOP INDIA v. WORKMEN (Vatdialingam, J.) 743
Appeal by special Leave from the Award dated the 29th February, 1968 of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta in Case No. 334 of 1967.
G. B. Pai and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.
D. L. Sen Gupta, Janardan Sharma and S. K. Nandy, for the _ respondents,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award dated February 29, 1968 of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, in Case No, 334 of 1967, setting aside the order dated August 2, 1966 passed by the appellant directing the torent of the concerned workman on his attaining the age of years. .
The appellant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business throughout India as manufacturers and dealers of tyres, tubes for motors, trucks and tractors etc. The workman concerned, Hari Nath Bhattacharjee, was appointed in 1944. At that time there were no rules regarding the age of superannuation. On April 26, 1955, the Company framed and brought into force under s. 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, standing orderg relating to its staff employees. Under clause 28 of the Standing Orders a staff employee as to retire on the first January next following the year im which he attains 55 years of age. But it was also provided that . if a staff employee desires to remain in service of the Company after the date when he should have been normally retired, the Managing Director had the power to extend the employee's service year by year provided the work: was found to be satisfactory and on omployee was certified by the Chief Medical Officer as of good ealth. ° ,
In 1956 an agreement.was entered into between the appellant and its workmen represented by the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. Clause 14 of the agreement fixed the age of retirement of a staff employee as the Ist of January next following the year in which he has attained 55 years of age. Notwithstanding: this agreement under which the age of retirement of a staff employee was 55 years, the appellant issued a Circular on April 20, 1960 to the effect that the management will mot ask any employee to. retire before attaining the age of 58 years.. In this Circular, after - referring to the uniform age of retirement in West Bengal of em- oye in Government.and Commercial Establishments, as the age
55 years, it is stated that the Industrial Tribunals throughout the countty have fixed the age of retirement varying from 55 years to 60 years.
On June 29, 1961, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union regarding the terms of engagement and conditions of employment of staff employees. The-agreement deals with various matters, Clause 14 of this agreement provided that the staff employees shall retire at the end of the month in which they attain the age of 58 years. This clause also provides for a staff employee retiring when. he is declared unfit on medical ground. Clause 27 provided that the agreement was to take effect from 1st January, 1961 and was to remain in force for five years from that date. In view of the expiry of the above agreement, the appellant and the same Union entered into a fresh agreemenf on December 6, 1966 regarding the terms of engagement and conditions of employment for staff employees. This agreement also deals with various matters. Clause 6, dealing with retirement, provided that the staff employees shall retire at the end of the month in which they attain the age of 58 years. Clause 32 provided that the agreement was to have effect from 1st January, 1966 and was to remain in force for five years from that date.
On August 2, 1966 the Company informed the concerned work. man that as per the Company’s Regulations, he was due to retire on February 28, 1967 as he will be attaining the age of 58 years on February 15, 1967. The workman replied on September 7, 1966 stating that he was not bound to retire on completion of 58 years as he had entered the service of the Company long before the Standing Orders fixing the age of retirement at the age of 55 years were framed. According to the workman, he was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. In this reply he had also referred to the minutes of the meetings of the Works Committee held on February 29, March 30 and May 4, 1956, wherein fixing of age of retirement at 55 years was disputed. He had also referred to certain other matters in his reply.
The appellant sent a further communication on November 4, 1966 reiterating its stand that the workman was to retire as mentioned in the letter dated August 2, 1966. The appellant further stated that though the age of retirement was fixed as 55 years in the Standing Orders dated April 26, 1955, the age was raised to 58 years in the agreements with the recognised Union and that the, said terms had been accepted by the employees of the appellant including the workman concerned. The appellant sent a further communication dated February 25, 1967 to the workman stating that he was bound by the age of retirement-fixed-in the agreements
DUNLOP INDIA ¥, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 745 dated June 29, 1961 and December 6, 1966. It was further mentioned in this letter that all the employees were uniformly retired from service. on: attaiming the age of 58 years in accordance with the said agreements. The appellant further stated that the workman had enjoyed all the benefits conferred on him under-the two agseements and-hence he was bound by the retirement age fixed B therein,
As conciliation proceedings failed, the Government of West Bengal referred to the Industrial Tribunal concerned for adjudica- . tion the question :
“Whether the retirement of Shri H. N. Bhattacharyya Cc is justified: ?
To what relief, if any, is he entitled ?”
The appellant relied on the agreements dated June 29, 1961 and December 6, 1966 in support of its stand that the order regarding the retirement of the workman was justified, In fact-the Com-
BD pany raised a plea that the concerned workman was bound by. the agreement of 1956 entered into between the appel-
_ lant and the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union fixing the age of retirement of its employees at 55 years on: the ground. that the workman. was a member of the said Unian. On this basis it was pleaded by the appellant that the concerned workman has really
_g «got a higher age of superannuation by virtue of the later two " agreements,
The Union on the other hand pleaded. that as there were no Standing Orders regarding the age of retirement when the workman joined service in 1944, he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years in view of the decision of this Court
F in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P..J. Sterling and others(). The Union further pleaded that the agreement of 1956 had not been given effect to by the appellant as willbe seen from its Circular dated April 20, 1966. The Union also contended that the workman was not bound by the agreements either of June 29, 1961 or of December 6, 1966 as the Union, which was a party to those
G agreements did not represent all the employees of the appellant including the concerned workman. The Union further raised a point that at the time of the appointment of the workman, an assut- ‘ance had been given by Mr. Edward, Employment Officer of ‘the
‘Company, that the workman can continue in service so'long as he was found to be physically fit, when the concemed! ‘workman joined: tHe services’ ofthe apy there-were no Staading Orders, Roles or Regulations regarding tie CHT SCR aE .* &
‘The: Tribunal has recorded the following findings : At the time
746 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1972] 3 S.CR.
age of retirement. The plea of the Union regarding the assurance stated to have been given by Mr, Edward was rejected. At the timé when the agreements of. 1961. and 1966 were entered into, there were three Unions, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, Dunlop Workmen’s Union and Dunlop Workers’ Association; but the agreements were entered into only with one union, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. The concerned workman as well as several other employees were not the members of this union. On the other hand, the workman was an active member of the Dunlop Workers’ Union, which was not a party to either of the agreemeints, and therefore, the workman was . not bound by those agreements. In 1966 there was only one Union, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, representing all. the employees of the Company, and therefore the workman was bound by the agreement of 1956. But the Company did not give effect to the age of retirement of 55 years as provided in cl. 14 of the agreement of 1956. In view of the decision of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others(*), the concerned workman was entitled to be in service till his attaining the age of G0 years. The Company’s plea that as the workman had enjoyed the benefits conferred on all employees under the agreements of 1961 and 1966, he was also bound by the age of retirement provided therein, was rejected on the ground that the workman can raise a dispute or a controversy about the age of retirement only when the provision regarding the age of superannuation was sought to be enforced. On these findings the Tribunal held that the order dated August 2, 1966 passed by the appellant is illegal and it also declared the right of the concerned workman to be reinstated with all benefits and that he is entiled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. ©
Mr. G. B. Pai, learned counsel for the appellant, raised three contentions : (1) The Tribunal, having held that the concerned workman was bound by the agreement of 1956, should have held that the workman was bound to retire at the age of 55 years as provided by cl. 14 therein or at any rate as per clause 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955. In this view, it should have further held that the Company’s asking the workman to retire on completion of 58 years was legal; (2) The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the agreements dated June 29, 1961 and December 6, 1966 fixing the age of retirement at 58 years were not binding on the concerned workman. On thé other hand, it should have held that those agreements were binding on the concerned workman especially as he had enjoyed the various other benefits conferred by them; and (3) In any event the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give a direction to the Company to continue the concerned workman in service till he attained the age of 60 years.
(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348. ; :
DUNLOP INDIA vy, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 747
Mr. D. L. Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the Union, pointed out that the findings of the Tribunal that the agrement of 1956 was binding on the concerned workman was itself erroneous. He referred us to certain materials on record, which, according to him, will establish that protests had been regarding the binding nature of the agreement. In the alternative he contended that the age. of retirement of 55 years as. provided in cl. 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955 or in cl. 14 of the agreement of 1956, has *tever been given effect to by the appellant as the circular dated April 20, 1960 will show as also the various dates on which the workmen were retired. The agreements of 1961 and 1966 were rightly held to be not binding on the concerned workman, as the concerned workman was not a member of the union which was a party to those agreements. Mr. Sen Gupta further pointed out that when once the action of the appellant in retiring the concerned workman on his attaining 58 years was being challenged, the Tribunal had to consider till what date the. workman was entitled to continue in service. Unless a finding is recorded by the Tribunal on the latter aspect, it will not be possible to consider otherwise the validity of the order that was being challenged. Therefore,-he pointed out that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the workman was entitled to continue in service till 60 years and it is on that basis
_ that it held that the termination of the services of the workman on ‘his attaining 58 years was illegal,
We have already referred to the fact that the Tribtynal has disbelieved the case set up by the workman regarding the assurance Stated to have been given at the time of his appointment by the Employment Officer, Mr. Edward. At the time when the workman entered the service of the appellant in 1944, admittedly there were no rules regulations or agreements regarding the age of superannuation. In the absence of any such rules, regulations or agreements regarding the age of superannuation, it was the case of the workman. that he was entitled to continue in service so long as he was physically and mentally fit. The Tribunal relying on
. the decision of this Court in Guest, Keen Williams, Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others(!) and Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co., Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd.(?) has held that the Standing Orders which are rules fixing the age of retirement, framed by a Company, would have no application to its prior employees unless it is shown that such employees accepted the new rules as part of their conditions of service. These decisions have further laid down that in the absence of any such indication that the employees have accepted’ the new’ rules as part of their condi-
_tions of service, they are entitled to be in service till they attain the age of years. In .support of his ist conten--
(1) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348. (2) 11964) 2 LLJ. 146.
tion Mr. Pai pointed out that the above two decisions relied ’ on by the Tribunal have been explained by this Court in a recent decision in Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd, v. Sri Alladin and others(). Ott the basis of the said decision, he contended that the Standing Orders framed in 1955 providing in cl, 28 the .age of retirement of an estiployee as 55 years, is binding on the appellant, though the Standing Orders were framed long after he had entered service. The counsel further re-enforced this argu- -ment relying on the agreenient of 1956 and the finding of the Tribunal that the said agreement was binding on the concermed wotkman. Mfr. Pai urged that the agreement of 1956, which is
-binding on the concerhed workman, clearly establishes that the employees represented by the Union including the concerned work- .man have accepted the rule regarding the age of retirement as part of their conditions of service. In short, according to Mr, Pai when the concerned workman is entitled to continue in service only till the age of 55 years, he has really been given a benefit by being allowed to coritinue till he attained the age of 58 years.
Normally the above contention of Mr. Pai will have consider- ‘able force. The decision in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. ‘v.P. J, Sterling and others(*) as to why the age of retirement of 60 years was fixed to employees who have been in service be“ore ‘the Standing Orders fixing the age of retirement were framed, has ‘been explained in Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Company
Ltd. v, Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd, Employees’
Union(*). In fact, both the decisions in Giést, Keen, Williams, Private Lid. v. P. J. Sterling and others(?) and Workmen of Kefflewell Bullen & Co, Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen. & Co. Ltd.(*) have been explained in Agra Electricity, Supply Co. Ltd. v. S¥i Alladin and others('). In the latest’ decision, after a review of the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, it has. been held that wher the Standing Orders até’ céitified and come into operation, they become binding on the employer and all the workmen presently employed as also those employed thereafter in the establishment conducted by that employer. It has béen’further held that. it cannot possibly be that such Standing Orders would bind. only those who aré employed after they comé into force and not. these who are employed previously, but are still in employment when they come into force.
Applying: the principles-laid down.in Agra Electricity Supply Co..Ltdi.v. Sri Alladin: and others('), it is clear that though the concerned: workmaii, in-the case before us, entered service of the appeliant.in 1944; he will be bound-by the Standing Orders framed
‘by. the-appeliant in 1955 after following the provisions of the rele-_ vemt’ statute inasniuch:as-he was a- workmen presently employed at the time when-the Standing Orders were certified. (1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 808. (2) [1960] 1 S.C.R. 348.
43) [1966] 2S.C.R. 498. (4) [1964] 2 L.L.J. 146.
DUNLOP INDIA vy, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 749
Though Mr. Sen Gupta has been able to draw our attention to certain protests made by the workman regarding the agreement of 1956, in our opinion, the finding of the Tribunal that the concerned workman was bound by the said agreement has to be accepted. There is no controversy that in 1956 there was only. one union, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. There is further fo controversy that the said union represented ‘all the employees of the Company. The agreement was entered into by the appellant with the said Union. If so, it follows that was a valid agreement and as rightly held by the Tribunal it was binding on the concerned workman. Clause 14 of the said agreement clearly ~ Specifies that a staff emtployee should retire on the 1st of January, . next following the year in which he has’attained 55 years of age. By this agreement it must be held that the employees have accepted the retiring age already provided in the Standing Ordrs framed in 1955 as part of their conditions of service. If the 1956 agreement holds the field, there is no scape from the conclusion that the concerned workman was entitled to be in service only till he attained the age of 55 years, and Mr. Pai is well founded in his contention that the retirement of the workman long after he attained the age of 55 years is justified.
It must be noted that the Tribunal has found that the agreement of 1956 has not been givem effect to by the appellant. This finding is attacked by Mr. Pai. Even here, in our opinion, the finding of the Tribunal is justified. That the retirement age provided under cl. 14 of the agreement of 1956 was not acted upon by the appellant Company is clear from the following circumstances: The appellant issued a circular on April 20, 1960 to the effect that the management will not ask any employee to retire before attaining the age of 58 years, In the said circular, it is stated that the question of fixing the retiring age of employees, both in public and private sectors, has received considerable attention and publicity and that in West Bengal though the retiring age is almost uniformly’ 55 years, in Government service, the Industrial Tribunals throughout the country have awarded ages of retirement varying from 55 to 60. From this circular it is clear that the management have decided not to retire any employee before attaining the age of 58 _ years, though the age of retirement was 55 years as per clause 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955 and clause 14 of the agreement of 1956.
It is also pertinent to rote that in Bombay area, disputes were raised by the employees of the appellant regarding the age. of retirement for clerical and subordinate staff to be raised from 55 to 60 years. The Industrial. Tribunal-raised the age of retirement’ to 60 years: The appellant had challenged: the. decision- of the Industrial Tribunal before this Court. This Court in its decision
2—L106 SupCI/72
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 s.cR.
in The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen and others(*), rendered on October 16, 1959, upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Company’s appeal. Following this judgment the appellant had issued the circular, referred to above, on April 20, 1960. The appellant entered into an agreement with the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union on June 29, 1961 fixing the age of retirement at 58 years. The same has been reiterated in the second agreement between the same parties on December 6, 1966. LW
Even on December 6, 1962 there is an inter office letter issued by the appellant stating that those staff employees who are over 52 or will attain the age of 52 on Ist January, 1963, will continue to work until the age of 60 years and all others will retire at 58. Admittedly, as on January 1, 1963, the concerned workman was over 52 years and as such by virtue of this letter he was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. All these circumstances clearly indicate that the appellant has departed from the original age of retirement fixed at 55 by the 1956 agreement.
The appellant had very strongly relied on Ex. J, as containing the list of employees (Staff, Operatives & Special Appointments) superannuated from 1956 to August 1, 1967. According to the appellant the particulars furnished in this list will establish that the age of retirement of 55 years fixed by the 1956 agreement has been given effect to and the staff has been retired on their attaining the age of 55 years as per clause 14.
We have already referred to the fact that cl. 14 of the 1956 agreement provides that staff employees are to retire on the 1st of January, next following the year in which they have attained 55 years of age. We have gone through the particulars mentioned therein. A perusal of the details mentioned in columns 5 and 6 relating to date of birth and date of retirement relating to the years 1956 to 1959 clearly shows that except a few officers, all the others have retired long after having completed 55 years of service. To take an instance : serial No. 8, Gopi Nath Seal, who was born on April 8, 1894 retited on April 1, 1956, ie., at about the age of 62 years. Similarly, serial No. 12, Dasurathi Bose, who was born on May 22, 1891 retired only on April 1, 1956, ie., when he was about 65 years. We do not want to multiply instances because there are persons who have retired at the age of 59 and long after attaining the age of 58. The list furnished by the appellant itself to establish that the 1956 agreement was given effect to regarding the age of superannuation does not support the appellant.
Mr. Pai pointed out that the aspect referred to. by us in Ex. I has not been put to the Company’s witness in which case an explanation would have been offered. When the facts and particulars
(1) [1960] 2S.C.R. 51.
DUNLOP INDIA Vv, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 751° in Ex. I are quite clear and when the appellant itself relied on | that document to establish that the members of the staff were | superannuated at the age of 55 years, it was its duty to offer satis. « factory explanation, if one such was available, to show why very | many Officers mentioned therein were continued in service long | after attaining the age of 55 years, ,
_From what is stated above, the contention of Mr. Pai that the | Tribumal’s finding that the agreement of 1956 has not been acted © upon, is erroneous, cannot be accepted. If so, it follows that the first contention of Mr. Pai will have to be rejected.
Coming to the second contention of Mr. Pai, the agreement of 1966, it can be safely left out of account as it came into effect only on December 6, 1966 long after the notice dated August 2, 1966 ; issued by the appellant to the concerned workman. Coming to the agreement of June 29, 1961 that was one entered into between the appellant and the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. At the time when this agreement was entered into, there is no controversy, that there were three labour unions, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory. Labour Union, Lunlop Workers’ Union and Dunlop Workers’ Association. It is not disputed by the appellant that the concerned workman was a member of the Dunlop Workers’ Union, which was not a party to any such agreement with the appellant. If the age of retirement at 58 had been fixed in the Standing Orders of the Company after following the procedure indicated in the relevant statute, as the appellant originally did in 1955, then the position may be different. On the other hand, what the appellant did was to enter into an agreement with the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, which represented only one section of the staff employees.
' When that is so, such an agreement will bind only such of the staff employees who were members of the Dunlop Rubber Factory . Labour Union, which was a party to the agreement. The concerned workman who was not a member of the said union was justified in contending that he was mot bound by the agreements of 1961 and 1966 and the Tribunal was also justified in upholding that contention.
Mr, Pai then urged that the agreements of 1961 and 1966 conferred very many benefits on the employees and those benefits have als been availed of by the concerned workman. Therefore, he urged that the workman was bound by the provisions contained in those agreements relating to the age of retirement. The mere fact that an employee gets the benefit of higher wages fixed under the agreement, in our opinion, cannot be considered to operate as a bar to his disputing the right of the management to retire him at the age of 58 years. It is only when the clause relating to the age of retirement is sought to be enforced that he can raise a contro- versy. The other provisions regarding gratuity and other retirement benefits will accrue to the workman only on his retirement and therefore it cannot be said that the concerned workman had taken the benefit of those provisions before he was due to retire. Therefore, we are not impressed with this contention of Mr. Pai. The second contention is also to be rejected,
The last contention of Mr. Pai need not detain us very long. When the order of the management directing the workman to retire on his attaining the age of 58 years was being challenged as illegal, the Tribunal] had necessarily to consider what is the proper retirement age for the concerned workman. It is only when a finding is given that the concerned workman is entitled to continue beyond 58 yeats that the Tribunal can hold the order of the Company directing his retirement at 58 years as illegal. So the Tribunal was justified in going into that aspect. The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v.— P. J, Sterling and others(*) and Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd.(*) for holding that the concerned workman who had joined service at a time when there were no rules, regulations, agreements or Standing Orders regarding the age of superannuation, was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. ‘Those decisions prima facie support the view of the Tribunal that the concerned workman, in the present case, is entitled to cntinue in service till he attained the age of 60 years, We have already referred to the fact that the said decisions have been explained by this Court in Agra Electricity Supply Co, Ltd. v, Sri Alladin and others(*),
However, the finding of the Tribunal that the concenned workman was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years can be supported on other grounds. We already referred to the decision of this Court in The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India)
. Ltd, v. Workmen and others(*) relating to the age of retirement being 60° years in respect of the appellant’s staff erfployed in Bombay region. Though that decision related to the employees of the appellant in Bombay region, it should be moted that this -Court rejected the contention of the Company that it being an all
~ India concern it should have uniform conditions of service through- out the country for its employees. It was further emphasised by this Court that industrial adjudication in India ap: ‘based on industry-cum-region basis, the Industrial Tribunals have jurisdic- _ tion to make necessary changes in a uniform scheme so that it might accord. with the prevailing conditions in the region where: the employees were working, as the changes found necessary by. the Tribunal were to ensure fair conditions of service. ;
(1D) [1960] IS.C.R. 348, 7 (2) [1964] 2 L.L.J. 146,
QG) [1970}1S.C.R. 808, (4) 1960] 2S.C.R. 51.
DUNLOP INDIA v, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 783
We have also referred to the inter office letter dated December 6, 1962 which further shows that even according to the appellant the concerned workman js entitled to continue in service till th age of 60 yeais. : '
Mr, Pai has referred us to certain decisions to show that the trend in West Bengal is to fix the age of retirement as 58 years for clerical and subordinate staff. Mr. Sen Gupta also referred us to certain decisions in other regions to show that the trend is to fix the age of retirement for staff members at 60 years. But it is not necessary for us to refer to those decisions cited either by ‘Mr. Pai or by Mr. Sen Gupta. We will only refer to the decision of this Court in M/s British Paints (India) Ltd, v, lis Workmen(*), which relates to West Bengal region wherein this Court fixed the age of retirement both for factory workmen and the staff members in the Company concerned at 60 years. No doubt, it is pointed out in the said decision that the uniform age was fixed for the. factory workmen also ity that case because of the particular nature of work the factory workmen had to do, but one thing is clear, the trend in West Bengal region is to fix the age of retirement at 60 | years for the clerical and subordinate staff. From this point of view the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant was entitled to continue in service till 60 years is justified.
The result is that the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs. ~
K.BN. Appeal dismissed. |
(1) [1966] 2S.C.R. 523.