Skip to content


M.C. Raju Vs. Executive Director - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A. No. 2733 of 1982
Judge
Reported inILR1983KAR189; 1985(1)KarLJ231; (1985)ILLJ210Kant
ActsKarnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Sections 3, 6, 10, 7, 12 and 13
AppellantM.C. Raju
RespondentExecutive Director
Excerpt:
- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b. adi, j] dispensation of disciplinary enquiry - electricity (supply) act (54 of 1948) section 79 and karnataka electricity board employees (conduct, discipline, control & appeal) regulations, 1987, regulation 14 petitioner alleged to have been involved in theft - criminal complaint also lodged in this regard - however, based on same evidence criminal court held that charge of theft is not proved and also recovery is not proved by prosecution - disciplinary authority relying upon admission of criminal charge by petitioner before investigation officer and in charge sheet, passing order of dismissal held, not proper, particularly, when enquiry was dispensed with and petitioner had no opportunity before disciplinary authority. further,..........him in service until he attains the age of 58 years, as per annexure-c, on the ground that the model standing orders prescribed under the karnataka industrial employment (standing orders) rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the rules), have been amended with effect from 11th march, 1982 by inserting clauses-15a providing 58 years as the age for retirement or superannuation of a workman. as there was no response from the respondent to his request he filed writ petition no. 34992/82 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to continue him in service till he attained the age of 58 years. the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 58 years on the basis of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Malimath, C.J.

1. This appeal is by the workman M. C. Raju challenging the order made by the learned single Judge on 12th October, 1982 dismiss his Writ Petition No. 34992/82.

2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows : The appellant was in the service of the respondent from the year 1947. After he attained the age of 55 years the respondent gave him an extension of service for six months. On the expiry of the extended term he was sought to be retired from service with effect from 1st October, 1982. The appellant made a request to the respondent to continue him in service until he attains the age of 58 years, as per Annexure-C, on the ground that the Model Standing Orders prescribed under the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), have been amended with effect from 11th March, 1982 by inserting Clauses-15A providing 58 years as the age for retirement or superannuation of a workman. As there was no response from the respondent to his request he filed Writ Petition No. 34992/82 seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to continue him in service till he attained the age of 58 years. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 58 years on the basis of the amended Model Standing Orders. The learned single Judge has taken the view that until the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent-Company are suitably amended providing 58 years as the age of superannuation of its workmen no workman can claim as a matter of right that he is entitled to remain in service till he attained the age of 58 years. It is the correctness of the said view that is questioned by the appellant in this appeal.

3. Thought the exact date is not available, it is not disputed that the certified Standing Orders of the respondent-Company framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had come into operation with effect from 2nd February, 1978. The schedule to the Act pertaining to the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders under the Act did not specify the age of retirement or superannuation as one of the matters in respect of which provision should be made in the Standing Orders. Even in the Model Standing Orders as they stood before 11th March, 1982 there was no provision in regard to the age of retirement or superannuation. In the certified Standing Orders of the respondent which were framed in conformity with the Model Standing Orders and which came into operation with effect from 2nd February,, 1978 there was no provision in regard to the age of retirement or superannuation. With effect from 11th March, 1982, the schedule to the Act was amended by the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Rules, 1982, specifying the age of retirement or superannuation as one of the matters to be provided in the Standing Orders under the Act. By the same Amendment Rules the Model Standing Orders were also amended with effect from 11th March, 1982 by inserting Clause-15A providing that the age of retirement or superannuation of the workman may be 58 years or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement on award which may be binding on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force.

4. Before, 11th March, 1982 though there was no provision in the Model Standing Orders regarding age of superannuation or age of retirement, the same was governed by the settlement entered into between the workmen and the Management of the respondent, which provided 55 years as the age of retirement. The said settlement is dated 19th August, 1977 and Clause-5 thereof made a provision in this behalf. Clause-2 of the settlement makes it clear that the settlement was for a period of five years from 19th August, 1977 to 17th August, 1982. It is not disputed that no fresh settlement thereafter was entered into between the workmen and he Management.

5. After the Act, the Rules and the Model Standing Orders were amended with effect from 11th March, 1982 as aforesaid, the workmen made an application on 16th June, 1982, as per Annexure-E, to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer, Bangalore, under S. 10(2) of the Act, proposing an amendment to the certified Standing Orders for providing 58 years as the age of retirement of the employees of the respondent. On 31st December, 1982 the amendment sought was allowed, which decision was challenged by the respondent in an appeal under S. 6 of the Act. The Appellate authority allowed the appeal on 19th March, 1983. The Appellate order was challenged by the workmen in Writ Petition No. 6593/83, and that Writ Petition came to be allowed on 4th October, 1983 and the matter was remitted to the Appellate authority-the Addl. Industrial Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, the Appellate authority made an Order on 19th July, 1984 allowing the appeal and setting aside the Order of the Certifying Officer and cancelling the certificate fixing 58 years as the age of retirement. The Appellate authority made a further order that a Clause viz., 'The age of retirement of superannuation of the employees shall be 55 years' shall be incorporated in the Standing Orders of the respondent. Sri Krishnaiah learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workmen are likely to challenge the order of the Appellate authority dated 19th July, 1984 by means of a separate Writ Petition.

6. The principal contention of Sri. Krishnaiah is that by virtue of S. 12-A of the Act of the Model Standing Orders as amended with effect from 11th March, 1982 became applicable to the employees of the respondent with effect from that date and that the same shall continue to remain in operation until it is superseded by amending the existing certified Standing Orders of the respondent. Section 12-A of the Act on which the argument of Sri Krishnaiah is based may for the sake of convenience by extracted as follows :-

'12-A TEMPORARY APPLICATION OF MODEL STANDING


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //