The Management Of M/S Grasim Industries ... vs The President / General Secretary

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100356 OF 2023 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHEMICAL DIVISION, KARVARA P.O., BINAGA-581307, UTTARA KANNADA JILLE

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. DR. ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND: by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High 1. THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY Court of Karnataka, ADITYA BIRLA EMPLOYEES' UNION Dharwad Bench M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHEMICAL DIVISION, BINGA P.O., KARWAR 581 307. UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.

2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION, MAJAGAVI ROAD, ITI COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-11. -2- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

3. THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS ACT), 1946 DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH

COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER

DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

IN WRIT PETITION NO.115417 OF 2019 (L-RES) AND ALLOW

THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)

This intra-court appeal by M/s. Grasim Industries

Limited [the appellant] is as against the writ Court's order

dated 14.02.2023 in W.P. No.115417/2019. The first

respondent [the Union] has filed this in W.P.

No.115417/2019 calling in question the second

respondent's order dated 14.08.2018 in the proceedings

No.4/2017 [Annexure-H] and the third respondent's order

dated 30.10.2019 [Annexure-K]. The second respondent's

order dated 14.08.2018 is under Section 5[3] of the

Industrial Employment [Standing Orders] Act, 1946 [for

short, 'the I.E. Act'], and the third respondent's order is in

appeal under Section 6 of the I.E. Act confirming the second

respondent's order.

2. The second and third respondents' impugned

orders relate to the age of retirement of the workmen with

the appellant at its Chemical Division in Karwar. The second

respondent has modified the appellant's Certified Standing

Orders enhancing the age of the workmen to 60 years from -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

58 years, and the third respondent has confirmed the same.

The appellant has unsuccessfully challenged these

respondents' orders in the subject petition in W.P.

No.115417/2017. The writ Court has dismissed this writ

petition essentially on the following two grounds:

[a] The retirement age in one of the appellant's

unit [its Polyfibers and Grasilene Division at

Haveri] is 60 years, and if the retirement age

in the appellant's Chemical Division [the

Subject Division] is 58 years, there would be

disparity resulting in unrest, and therefore,

there must be equality in the retirement age

amongst the workmen in the two units.

[b] The second and the third respondents have

analyzed the facts and applied the relevant

Rules / Standing Orders in appreciating the

claim for retirement age of 60 years.

The writ Court has also referred to decision of a Division

Bench of this Court in M/s. Grasim Industries Private -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

Limited, General Secretary, Harihar Polyfibers Union in

W.A. No.100250/20211. The Division Bench has held that

the retirement age must be 60 years.

3. This Court must now recount the factual

circumstances leading to the present intra-court appeal. The

appellant's Standing Order2 is certified w.e.f. 19.04.1976

under Section 3 of the I.E. Act. A copy of this Certified

Standing Order [CSO] is produced as Annexure-A. The CSO

provides for 55 years as a retirement age. The Union has

raised a demand for increase in the retirement age from 55

years to 58 years, and this demand is discussed and made

part of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.1985.

This settlement has prevailed until a demand is raised by

the Union in the year 2013 seeking enhancement in the

retirement age to 62 years. This demand [identified as

demand No. VIII in the relevant Charter of Demand] is

1 This writ appeal is decided on 05.07.2022 2 The Chemical Division was known as Ballarpur Industries Limited, but the second respondent, in the impugned order dated 14.08.2018, has permitted the change in name in the CSO while enhancing the retirement age to 60 years. -6-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

discussed but not agreed upon.3 The Memorandum of

Settlement dated 05.07.2015 [hereafter referred to as 'the

Settlement - 2015], apart from recording this failure of

consensus, also contains certain terms that are mentioned

under heading General. The terms under this head that are

germane for the present controversy is thus.

This Memorandum of settlement comes into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and will remain in force till 31.03.2018 and shall continue to be in operation and binding on both the parties even after this date till such time, the terms and conditions herein are modified or substituted by another settlement.

This Memorandum of Settlement shall be treated as a Package Deal and is in full and final settlement of all the demands / issues raised by the Union in their Charter of Demands dated 02.01.2015. Any demand / issue raised by the Union/ workmen and it is agreed that the Union and the Workmen will not raised any demands involving financial implications on the Management during the currency of the settlement. All the existing practices, privileges and other terms and conditions of service

3 However, as part of the discussion on the demand for retirement, the appellant has agreed that the workmen will retire on the last date of the corresponding month.

-7-

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

except to the extent modified in this settlement will continue to be operative and effective.

4. The Union has filed another Charter of

Demand on 05.02.2018. On the age of retirement, the Union

has once again demanded for increase of the age of

retirement from 58 to 62 years. This demand, along with

other demands, is discussed and a Memorandum of

Settlement dated 11.03.2019 [hereafter referred as 'the

Settlement - 2019'] is drawn. The Settlement - 2019 is

agreed to be in force between 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2021.

As regards the demand for increase in the retirement age,

the settlement is recorded thus: 'as the matter is legal both

the parties agreed to bind with the higher Courts judgments.'

The Settlement - 2019 further records that any demand

raised by the Union but not specifically settled or is dropped

and pressed, the Union and the workmen will not raise any

demand if those demands involve financial implications on

the management.

5. In the meantime, the State Government has

issued notification dated 27.03.2017 [Annexure - D] -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

amending Schedule I of the Karnataka Industrial

Employment [Standing Orders] Rules, 1961 [for short, 'the

I.E. Rules 1961']. The entry in Sl. No.15A of the Schedule of

these Rules relates to the age of retirement, and this entry is

amended by the aforesaid notification to stipulate that a

workman may retire at the age of 60 years. The Union,

relying on this notification, has submitted an application

with the second respondent on 18.04.2017 for directions to

the appellant to implement the amendment and increase the

age of retirement for workmen from 58 to 60 years.

6. The second respondent, upon receipt of such

application, has extended an opportunity to the appellant to

file objections. The second respondent by the impugned

order dated 14.08.2018 has amended the CSO to read that

every workmen with the appellant in this Division shall

retire on attaining the age of 60 years. This Court must

observe that the second respondent, referring to Section 3[2]

of the I.E. Act, has opined that a Standing Order such as the

CSO must be, so far as it is practicable, in conformity with

the Model Standing Order [as contained in Schedule I of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

I.E. 1961 Rules4] and the CSO must also be according to

such amendment. The third respondent has dismissed the

appellant's appeal as against the second respondent's order

by the next impugned order dated 30.1.2019 accepting the

reasons assigned.

The details of the rival submissions.

7. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, the learned senior counsel

for the appellant, argues for interference with the writ

Court's order on the following grounds.

7.1 The writ Court has affirmed the second and

third respondents' impugned orders on the ground that the

retirement age in the appellant's unit in Haveri Division is

60 years and that there must be parity amongst the

workmen across the Units to ensure equality in service

condition, but the writ Court has not considered that though

the application by Workmen's Union for this Division is alled

by the Certifying Officer, the Appellate Authority, in the

appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 6 of the I.E.

4 The amendment to Entry in Sl No. 15A vide the notification dated 27.03.2017.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

Act, vide the order dated 21.04.2021 has interfered with the

Certifying Officer's order. The Workmen's Union has called

this order in question in W.P. No.102555/2021 which is still

pending consideration. When the question of retirement age

in the Haveri Division is thus pending, there will be no

justification to apply the principle of parity.

7.2 The writ Court has relied upon the decision in

W.A. No.100250/2021, but both the appellant and the

concerned Union have filed the review petitions in R.P.

No.100126/2022 and R.P. No.100057/2023. These review

petitions are pending consideration. In any event another

Co-ordinate Bench in the Management of Hindalco

Industries Limited v. General Secretary, Employees'

Union in W.A. No.100325/2022 has distinguished the

decision in W.A. No.100250/2021 observing that the

decision in the earlier application is without considering the

decision of the Apex Court in Barauni Refinery

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil

Corporation and others5.

7.3 The Apex Court in Barauni's case supra has

declared that during the operation of a settlement, it is not

open for the workmen to demand a change in service

condition contrary to the settlement. This principle must

apply in the present case, and the decision in the writ

appeal in W.A. No.100250/2021 must be distinguished,

because the appellant, both under the Settlement - 2015

and Settlement - 2019, did not agree for increase in the

retirement age from 58 years. The agreement specifically on

both the occasions is that that any demand or issue which is

not specifically settled shall be treated as dropped with the

workmen not being entitled to raise a demand in that regard

during the tenure of the settlement when there is financial

implication. The Union cannot go beyond this agreement.

7.4 The second and third respondents could not

have relied upon Sections 3[2] of the I.E. Act alone, and they

5 [1991] 1 SCC 4

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

should have read such provision in conjunction with the

entry in Sl. No.15A of Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961. This

entry stipulates that the Standing Orders may be in

conformity with the Model Standing Orders so far as is

practicable and subject to the further condition that the age

of retirement of a workmen may be 60 years or such other

age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the

workmen by any agreement which is binding on them under

any law for the time being in force. The agreement under the

Settlement - 2019 is a binding settlement, and during the

currency of this agreement, no application could have been

filed with the second respondent.

8. Sri. V.M. Sheelvant, the learned counsel for the

Union, rebuts the appellant's case as presented by Dr.

Aditya Sondhi urging the following.

8.1 The appellant and the Union indisputably have

entered into another settlement for the period upto

31.03.2021. The Union once again raised a demand for

increase in the retirement age. This demand was discussed

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

and made part of the Settlement -2019. The appellant and

the Union have specifically agreed that they shall be bound

by the decision of the higher Courts. This agreement is in the

backdrop of the indisputable fact that the Union's claim for

increase in the retirement age from 58 to 60 years is in view

of the notification dated 27.03.2017, the second respondent

had decided in favour of the workmen, and the appellant's

grievance with such decision was pending consideration

with the third respondent as of that date. The third

respondent's decision affirming the second respondent's

order on amendment of the CSO increase in the retirement

age to 60 years is on 30.10.2019.

8.2 The agreement under the Settlement - 2019

therefore is not to drop the demand or not to raise the

demand for any particular period but it is to abide by the

decision of the third respondent, who has now confirmed the

second respondent's decision to amend the CSO increasing

the retirement to 60 years. The writ Court has also

confirmed the same. Therefore, even if the decision of the

Apex Court in Barauni's case is made applicable, because

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

the agreement is to be bound by the third respondent's order

dated 30.10.2019 the age of retirement as 60 years would be

in consonance with the agreement as contained in the

Settlement - 2019.

8.3 The Apex Court in the recent decision in

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/s. Jet

Airways Limited in Civil Appeal No.4404/2023, which is

decided on 25.07.2023, has held that, "any condition of

service, if inconsistent with the certified Standing Orders,

would not prevail, as the certified Standing Orders would

have precedence over all such agreements. Any settlement,

the employee Union enters into with the employer would not

over ride the Model Standing Order, unless it is more

beneficial to the employees." The decision that Model

Standing Order must over-ride any settlement must prevail

because the Model Standing Order [as contained in Schedule

I of the I.E. Rules 1961] is amended by the notification dated

27.03.2017 enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years.

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

8.4 If this Court opines that the Union could not

have applied during the subsistence of the Settlement -

2015 i.e., on 18.04.2017, this Court may permit the

retirement age for the workmen with the appellant in the

Chemical Division with effect from the date of the Settlement

- 2019 viz., 11.03.2019 as both the appellant and the Union

have agreed on this date to be bound by the decision in the

pending proceedings. If despite the changes in the Model

Standing Order [as per Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961'] as

is brought about by the notification dated 24.03.2017, a

management, such as the appellant, is permitted to deny the

benefit of increase in the retirement age citing lack of

agreement, this beneficial change can never be implemented.

9. In reply Dr. Aditya Sondhi emphasizes the

following.

9.1 This Court must distinguish the facts of the

present case from the case in hand before the Apex Court in

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh supra,

because the Workmen's Union therein was contending that

its members were being held to an agreement contrary to the

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

Certified Standing Order to deny the benefit of permanency

in employment and in this case, the appellant [the

management] is only insisting on adherence to the CSO

wherein the Union has agreed to drop the demand and not

to raise any demand which has financial implication for a

certain period. The Union has applied much before the

expiry of the period.

9.2 The Union cannot draw support from the

Settlement - 2019 because it has, as in the case of

Settlement - 2015, specifically agreed that it will not raise

any demand which has financial implication for the period

up to 31.03.2021. The agreement in the Settlement - 2019

that the Management will be bound by the decisions of the

higher Courts must necessarily be considered in the light of

the pending proceedings before the writ Court challenging

the second and the third respondent's order and this

assurance.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

The reasoning:

10. The Apex Court in Barauni's case supra has

held that it will not be open to the workmen to demand a

change in condition of service contrary to the settlement, but

the Union relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in

Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh supra,

wherein it is exposited that the Model Standing Order must

prevail over the settlement unless it is shown that the

settlement is more beneficial to the workmen. However, this

Court must observe that in Bharatiya Kamgar

Karmachari Mahasangh the exposition in Barauni's case

did not come up for consideration and the efficacy of such

exposition is not disturbed.

11. The Apex Court in Barauni's case, while

considering whether the settlement through conciliation

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act']

put a bar on the rights of the workmen to approach the

authorities under the I.E. Act for fixation of the age of

superannuation, has held that a settlement through

conciliation [as contemplated under Section 18 of the ID Act]

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

will be distinct from a regular contract and will be binding

on even those who are in a minority union and who join

service later.

11.1 The Apex Court's decision in Barauni's

case in this regard reads as under:

It may be seen on a plain reading of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 that settlements are divided into two categories, namely, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and

(ii) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has extended application since it is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognized majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The object obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlements reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. There is an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and can, therefore, safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the Union signing the settlement but also on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority.

The Apex Court in a subsequent decision in National

Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan,

which is by a larger Bench of three Judges, has referred to

the decision in Barauni's case endorsing the proposition

that a settlement through conciliation is put on par with an

award by an adjudicating authority. As such, the

unassailable position in law will be that when the settlement

through conciliation is subsisting, the workmen cannot be

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

permitted to demand a change contrary to the terms of the

settlement.

11.2 This Court, in view of these two decisions

and the position that emerges from them, must opine that

the crucial question that should have been considered by

the writ Court was whether the second and the third

respondents had examined the specifics of the agreement

between the appellant and the Union through conciliation on

the increase in the retirement age. This Court must also

opine that the writ Court could have upheld the second and

third respondents' decisions only if it could have opined that

there was no settlement through reconciliation on the

increase in the retirement age.

11.3 The writ Court has referred to a decision of

the Co-ordinate Bench in W.A. No.100250/2021 the

appellant's own case but insofar as a Polyfibers Unit in

Harihar. This Court must observe, as is emphasized by Dr.

Aditya Sondhi relying upon another decision by another co-

ordinate Bench in Hindalco Industries Limited supra, the

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

decision in this writ appeal in W.A. No.100250/2021 must

be distinguished because the decisions of the Apex Court in

Barauni's case and National Engineering Industries

Limited supra are not considered.

11.4 Further, the writ Court could not have

applied the principle of parity referring to the retirement age

in the appellant's yet another Unit as it remains undisputed

that though the certifying Officer permitted amendment of

the appropriate Standing Order to increase the retirement

age, the Appellate Authority has interfered with such order

on 21.04.2021, and a writ petition as against this decision is

pending in W.P. No.102555/2021. Crucially, though the writ

Court has referred to the settlement between the appellant

and the Union, its decision is not predicated on the terms of

the settlement.

11.5 In the light of the afore, the outcome in the

present writ appeal must turn on the question: whether the

appellant and the Union have agreed by a settlement through

conciliation on increasing the retirement age of the workmen.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

This question is examined in the light of the terms of the

CSO as is originally certified in the year 1976 under Section

3 of the I.E. Act and the subsequent settlements through

conciliation over the next four-four and a half decades. It is

undisputed that the CSO, as originally certified in the year

1976, provided 55 years as the retirement age, and further,

in the year 1985 by way of a settlement, the appellant and

the Union agreed that the retirement age will be 58 years.

This settlement has prevailed until the commencement of

the present dispute.

11.6 The Union has filed a Charter of Demand in

the year 2015 seeking enhancement in the retirement age

from 58 to 62 years. There are conciliation proceedings, and

a settlement is arrived at between the appellant and the

Union. The settlement - 2015 is drawn on 05.07.2015. It is

specifically recorded that the demand for increase in the

retirement age is discussed but not agreed. The noting in the

Charter of Demand itself [which is hand written] is that the

demand for increase in the retirement age to 62 years is

dropped. The Union has again raised this demand in

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

submitting its Charter of Demand dated 09.02.2018. It is

seen from the terms of Settlement - 2019 that there were

several rounds of bilateral discussions with exchange of a

number of proposals, but with the intervention of the

Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, the

settlement is reached on 11.03.2019. The settlement is that

both the appellant and the Union will be bound by the

decision of the Higher Courts.

11.7 This Court must observe that if the

Settlement 2015 had continued without any change, there

would be no dispute that the Union had unequivocally

dropped the demand for increase in retirement age for the

period up to 2018 [until 31.03.2018]. However, the

subsequent agreement vide the Settlement - 2019 is to be

bound by the decision of the Higher Courts. This change in

stand, and therefore the Settlement, must be examined in

the backdrop of certain vital circumstances. The following

are such circumstances.

[A] The State Government had issued notification dated 27.03.2017 amending the Model Standing Orders

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

as contained in Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961 increasing the age of retirement for workmen to 60 years. The relevant amendment is to entry in Sl. No.15-A which reads as under:

"The age for retirement or superannuation of the workman may be [60 years] or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force."

[B] The Union in view of this change had approached the second respondent, the Certifying Officer under the IE Act, immediately for modification in the CSO. The Union's application in this regard dated 18.04.2017. The second respondent, after extending an opportunity to the appellant, had concluded that the CSO should be modified bringing it on par with the Model Standing Orders as aforesaid. The appellant had not accepted the second respondent's decision inasmuch as it had availed statutory remedy against the second respondent under Section 6 of the I.E. Act with the third respondent.

11.8 It follows from these indisputable

circumstances that if there was an agreement under the

- 25 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

Settlement - 2015 with the Union agreeing to drop the

demand for increase in the retirement age, the agreement

under the Settlement - 2019 is to be bound by the decision

of the Higher Courts.The appellant relies upon the further

term [as part of the General terms] in the Settlement - 2015

viz., that the Union / workmen have agreed not to raise any

demand or issue which is not specifically settled or is

dropped / not pressed if there is any financial implication to

the appellant during the currency of the settlement.

11.9 This term could have been invoked if it

could be opined reasonably that the Union / workmen had

either dropped the demand for increase in the retirement age

or the demand was not specifically settled, but the

agreement under the settlement is to be bound by the

decisions of the Higher Courts. This term not to raise a

demand that has financial implication will have to be read

subject to the agreement that both the appellant and the

Union will be bound by the decision of the Higher Court. As

such, the application of the proposition in Barauni's case

that it would not be open to the workmen to demand a

- 26 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

change in the condition of service contrary to the settlement

during the operation of the settlement is rendered tenuous

Therefore, the appellant cannot draw any support from the

agreement not to raise the demand which has financial

implication to the appellant.

11.10 The State Government has issued

notification dated 27.03.2017 increasing the retirement age

for the workmen by amending the I.E. 1961 Rules. The

retirement age is increased to 60 years. When the settlement

between the appellant and the Union is to be bound by the

decisions of the Higher Courts and not a concluded

settlement through conciliation on the particular age for

retirement, the provisions of Section 3[2] of the I.E. Act will

be crucial. These provisions read as under:

"3[2] The Standing Order prepared as required under sub-section [1] shall refer to every matter set out in the schedule which may be applicable to the industrial establishment and where Model Standing Orders have been prescribed shall be so far as is practicable in conformity with such Model Standing Order."

- 27 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

11.11 The stipulation is that certified Standing

Orders must be in conformity with the Model Standing

Orders subject to practicability. Therefore, it follows that if

the appellant is unable to demonstrate why it would be

impracticable for its workman to retire at the age of 60

years, the CSO must be in conformity with the Model

Standing Orders in terms of I.E. 1961 Rules. This Court

must record that no circumstance to justify a conclusion

that it would be impracticable to have the workmen retire at

the age of 60 years is not brought on record. In which event,

the retirement age must be 60 years. Next, this Court must

refer to the provisions in SL No. 15A of the I.E.1996 Rules

[Model Standing Orders]. This Entry in the Model Standing

Order reads as under:

"15A. The age for retirement or superannuation of the workman may be [60 years] or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force."

- 28 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023

11.12 This Rule in the Model Standing Order

stipulates that the retirement age may be 60 years or such

age as may be agreed between the employer and the

workmen. As opined supra there is no agreement between

the appellant and Union on the retirement age and the

agreement is only to be bound by the decision of the Higher

Courts. The workmen cannot be denied the benefit of

retiring at the age of 60 years in terms of a beneficial law

when there is no agreement on the retirement age and the

agreement against raising a demand that has financial

implication to the appellant cannot be held against them.

Therefore, the question framed in favour of the Union

concluding that there is no justification to interfere with the

writ Court's order.

As such, this intra-Court appeal is rejected.

Sd/-

(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/-

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP