Supreme Court of India
BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK PARISHAD AND OTHERSversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 1990 INSC 199
- Decided
- 12 July 1990
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A M AHMADI
Holding
A settlement reached in conciliation proceedings is binding on all workmen and prevents any modification of certified standing orders that would alter the service conditions covered by the settlement.
Summary
The case concerned two trade unions of Barauni Refinery seeking to raise the superannuation age from 58 to 60 years by modifying Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948. A general settlement (May 24 1983) and a specific memorandum of settlement (August 4 1983) had been concluded in conciliation proceedings and contained clauses that left unchanged any service conditions not expressly altered and prohibited any demand that would impose a financial burden on the corporation. The High Court held that the settlement was binding on all workmen and that the modification of the standing order would contravene the settlement’s clauses 19 and 21, thus it was invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that settlements arrived at in conciliation proceedings bind all employees and preclude any alteration of service conditions during their operation. Consequently, the appeals by the unions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 binds all workmen and bars them from seeking modification of certified standing orders.
- Whether the certifying authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948 can entertain an application to amend a standing order that conflicts with a binding settlement.
- Whether Clause 20 of the certified standing orders relating to the age of superannuation can be modified during the period of operation of the settlement.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 12, s. 18, s. 2(p), s. 9A
- Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948s. 10, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7
Subjects
settlementconciliationstanding orderssuperannuation ageindustrial disputebinding settlementmodification of standing orderstrade unionIndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) ActIndustrial Disputes Act
Judgment
BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK
A
PARISHAD AND OTHERS
v. -.('-
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS
JULY 12, 1990
B
[A.M. AHMADI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.)
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948: Sections 5
and 7 and Clause 20 of the Standing Orders-Modification of Standing
Order providing for upward revision of age of superannuation-
Whether valid.
c
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 9A, 12 and 18--'Settle-
ment'-Arrived at in conciliation proceedings-Binding nature of
The appellants are two different trade unions of Barauni Refinery
D of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The IOCL is
comprised essentially of two divisions: (1) Marketing Division, and (2)
- Refinery and Pipe Lines Division. The age ofsuperannuation orthe staff
in the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas for the Refinery and
Pipe Lines Division it was iixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the
Standing Orders concerning Barauni Refinery.
E
In December 1981, 14 recognised Unions representing the
employees of the IOCL working in different reimeries and pipe lines
divisions submitted a charter of demands. By clause 18 of this charter
the superannuation age was sought to he enhanced to 60 years. A siini-
lar charter of demands was separately submitted by the Barauni
F Telshodhak Mazdoor Union.
As a result of discussions a general settlement wru. . ~ally
arrived at by and between the parties on May 24, 1983. Subsequently, a
separate Memorandum of Settlement dated 4th August, 1983 concern-
ing Barauni Reimery was signed by the parties under sections 12(3) and
G 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in conciliation prpceedings.
Both the general settlement and the special settlement concerning
Barauni Refinery were to remain in force till 30th April, 1986. Despite
the specific demand made in the two charters of demand for the upward
revision of the age of superannuation, no specific provision was made in _,)-
that behalf either in the general settlement or in the special settlement.
H On the contrary, clause 19 of both the settlements provided that the
282
)
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL 283
terms and conditions of service which were not changed under the settle-
A
~ents shall remain unchanged and operative during the period of settle-
ment, further, clanse 21 did not permit raising of any demand throwing
an additional burden on the corporation dnring that period.
Later, the Petroleum and Chemical Mamoor Union served notice
on the Regional LabollJ' Commissioner (Central) under section 10(2) of B
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1948 for modifica-
. tion of clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders of Barauni Refinery
~for raising the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. This
demand was based on the averment that the nature of work performed
--
by the workmen in the Refmery and Pipe Lines Division and their pay-
scales were identical to the staff members of the Marketing Division.
c
The Regional .Labour Commissioner allowed the application for
- ~odification of clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders. The Appel-
late Authority dismissed the appeal of the Corporation, but at the same
time directed a slight modification in clause 20 of the Standing Orders.
D
The IOCL preferred a writ petition in the High Court for quashing
the orders of the Regional Labour Commissioner as well as the Appellate
Authority. On the other hand, the Union, feeling aggrieved by the order
of the Appellate Authority, preferred a writ petition against that order.
--
,
The High Court inter alia held that the settlement arrived at in the E
conciliation proceedings was binding on the workmen, and as clause 19
of the settlement kept the service conditions which were not changed .in
tact and clause 21 of the settlement did not permit raising of any
demand throwing an additional burden on the Corporation, it was not
permissible to modify the certified Standing Orders by an amendment,
as that would alter the service conditions and increase the fmancial F
')- burden on the management.
Dismissing the appeals by the two trade unions this Court,
HELD: ( 1) The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1948 was enacted to define with sufficient precision the conditions of G
employment for workers employed in industrial establishments and to
make the same known to them. [289B]
(2) According to sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 18 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, settlem~ts are divided into two categories,
namely, (i) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (ii) H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 dispnte. [292A-B]
B (3) A settlement arrived in the conrse of conciliation proceedings .':>-
with a recognised majority onion will be binding on all workmen of the
establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had y
objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of ·
contract. [292C]
C
(4) The object is to uphold the sanctity of settlement 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
D the union signing the settlement but also on others. The High Court
was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the settlement
dated 4th August, 1983 was binding on all the workmen of the Barauni
Refinery including the members of Petroleum and Chemical Mazdoor
Union. [292D-E]
E (5) The age of retirement prescribed by clause 20 of the Certified
Standing Orders was undoubtedly a condition of service which was kept
in tact by clause 19 of the settlement. [292G]
F
(6) During the operation of the settlement it was not open to the
workmen to demand a change in clause 20 of the certified Standing
Orders because any upward revision of the age of superannuation would
come in conflict with clauses 19 and 21 of the settlement. [293E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 930-
~
'
31of1990.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 15. 9.1989 of the Delhi High
CourtinC.W.P.No.1770of1987.
Hardev Singh, Ms. Madho Mootchandani and Jitender Sharma for
l--
the Appellant.
H V.N. Koura and Ashok Grover for the Respondents.
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL {AHMADI. J.] 285
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
AHMADI, J. These two appeals by two different Trade Unions
of Barauni Refinery are directed against the decision of the High
Court of Delhi which set aside the modification of Clause 20 of the
Standing Orders certified under Sectimt 5 of the Industrial Employ-
ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called 'the Standing B
_ -4.. Orders Act'). The brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as
under:
Two companies, namely, the Indian Refinery, Limited and
Indian Oil Company, Limited amalgamated in 1964 and a new Com-
pany known as Indian Oil Corporation, Limited (IOCL) was
incorporated. This newly formed company comprised essentially of c
two divisions, namely, ( 1) Marketing Division, representing the staff,
assets and business of Indian Oil Company, Limited and (2) Refinery
~ ~-- and Pipe Lines Division, representing the staff, assets and oil refinery
manufacturing of petroleum products of Indian Refinery, Limited.
The age of superannuation of the staff in the Marketing Division was 60 D
years whereas the age of superannuation for the Refinery and Pipe
Lines Division was fixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the Standing
Orders concerning Barauni Refinery. The IOCL has refineries in diffe-
rent parts of the country includmg one at Barauni. The Standing
Orders concerning the Barauni Refinery came into force on 5th
December, 1964 as provided by Section 7 of the Standing Orders Act E
and apply to all workmen employed in the said industrial establish-
ment. Clause 20 of the Standing Orders reads as under:
"Every employee shall retire from service on completing
the age of 58 years. Extension for a maximum period of 5
years but not for more than one year at a time may be given p
at the discretion of the company provided the employee is
~-
certified to be fit by the Company's Medical Officer and
provided further that the employee concerned also con-
sents to such extension."
By a Joint letter dated 15th December, 1981, 14 recognised Unions G
representing the employees of the IOCL working in different refine-
ries and pipe lines divisions submitted a charter of demands in terms of
clause 2.1.3 of the long term settlement dated 3rd December, 1979. By
clause 18 of this charter of demands the superannuation age was
sought to be enhanced to 60 years. A similar charter of deutands was·
forwarded by the Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union to the General H
~
•
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.
Manager, IOCL, Barauni Refinery, on 23rd December, 1981. Pur-
A
suant to the presentation of this charter of demands, meetings were
held between the Management of IOCL (R & P Division) and the·
recognised Unions of the said Division from time to time. As a result
of discussions held at the said meetings as settlement was mutually
arrived at by and between the parties on May 24, 1983. Clauses 19 and
B 21 of this general settlement concerning all the Refineries and Pipe
Lines Divisions, inter alia provided as under:
"19. The Corporation agrees that such terms and condi-
tions of service as well as amenities and allowances as are
not changed under this settlement shall remain unchanged
and operative during the period of the settlement."
c
"21. The Unions agree that during the period of operation
of this settlement, they shall not raise any demand having
financial burden on the Corporation other than bonus pro-
vided that this Clause shall not affect the rights and obliga-
D tions of the parties in regard to matters covered under Sec-
tion 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
This general settlement was to remain in force from 1st May, 1982 to
30th April, 1986. After this general settlement was signed by the
Management and the Union representatives a separate Memorandum
E of Settlement dated 4th August, 1983 was signed between the IOCL
(R & P Division), Barauni Refinery, and their workmen represented
by Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union, Barauni Refinery, under sec-
tions 12(3) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in concilia-
tion proceedings initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer, Begusarai. This settlement too was to remain in
F force from 1st May, 1982 to 30th April, 1986. Clauses 19 and 21 of this
settlement were verbatim reproduction of those in the general settle-
ment dated 24th May, 1983 extracted hereinabove. It may here be
mentioned that despite the specific demand made in the charter of
demands for the upward revision of the age of superannuation, no
specific provision was made in that behalf either in the general settle-
G ment or in the special settlement concerning Barauni Refinery. On the
contrary clause 19 of both the settlements provides that the terms and
conditions of service which are not changed under the Settlement shall
remain unchanged and operative during the period of settlement.
The Petroleum and Chemical Mazdoor Union through its
H General Secretary, Ram Vinod Singh, served notice on the Regional
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL [AHMADI, J.] 287
Labour Commissioner (Central) under Section 10(2) of the Standing
A
-~- Orders Act for modification of clause 20 of the certified Standing
Orders of Barauni Refinery for raising the age of superannuation from
58 years to 60 years mainly on the ground that the staff members work-
ing in the Marketing Division superannuated on completing the age of
60 years. It was also contended by the said Union that the demand for
the upward revision of the age of superannuation could not be pressed B
at the time of the settlement arrived at pursuant to the charter of
_ demands because the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years under the
Y relevant certified Standing Orders. It was, therefore, felt necessary
that clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders applicable to Barauni
Refinery of the IOCL should be got suitably modified to raise the age
of retirement to 60 years. This demand was based on the averment that
the nature of work performed by the workmen in the Refinery and
c
Pipe Lines Division was identical to that performed by the staff
- '~. members of the Marketing Division. The pay-scales of the employees
of the Refinery Division and Marketing Division were also identical. It
was, therefore, contended that there was no valid reason for fixing
different ages for retirement for the staff members working in the said D
two Divisions of IOCL.
The Regional Labour Commissioner after hearing the rival
parties allowed the application for modification of clause 20 of the
certified Standing Orders. By his order he directed that clause 20
should be modified as under: E
"Normally the age of retirement of workman of the Corpo-
ration is fixed at 60 years. No notice is required to be given
by a workman of his intention to retire on superannuation
or by the Management to the workman that he is due to
reach the age of superannuation on certain date. The work- F
man should not, however, leave his place of duty without
being relieved."
Against this order of 11th October, 1984, the IOCL preferred an
appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section 6 read with Section
10(3) of the Standing Orders Act. The Appellate Authority while dis- G
missing the appeal directed a slight modification in clause 20 of the
Standing o·rders. Clause 20 as modified by the Appellate Authority
was worded as under:
"Every workman shall generally retire on attaining the age
of 58 years. Between the 57th and 58th year Company's H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.
Medical Officer would conduct the medical test and if the
A
workman is found to be medically fit he shall be retained in ~-
service for a period of two more years beyond the age of 58
years i.e. upto 60 years."
Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Authority the IOCL
B preferred a writ petition No. CWP No. 1717/ffl in the High Court at
Delhi for quashing the impugned order of the Certifying Officer dated ).---
11th October, 1984 and the impugned order of the Appellate Autho-
rity dated 4th May, 1987. The Union which had initiated the proceed- ·y'
ings for modification of Clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders also
felt aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority and prefer-
red a writ petition No. CWP 3417/87 in the High Court of Delhi. Both
c these writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench and were disposed
of by a common Judgment. The writ petition filed by the IOCL was
allowed while the other writ petition was dismissed. ~~
While hearing these two writ petitions the High Court for-
D mulated two points for consideration, namely, (i) "Whether the
Certifying Authority under the Standing Orders Act has the jurisdic-
tion to entertain an application for amendment of a Standing Order
which fixes the age of retirement of the workmen as 58 years which is
in consonance with the model Standing Order and enhances the age of
retirement to 60 years without first _giving any finding whether it 1s
practicable to give effect to the model Standing Order" and (ii) ~
E
"Whether the settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) and Section
19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the petitioner and
the workmen represented by their recognised majority union and j-
which settlement was in force when impugned orders were made, had
put any bar on the rights of the workmen to approach the authorities
-
F under the said Act for seeking modification of the Standing Orders
with regard to the fixati.on of the age of superannuation of the work-
men". The High Court answered the first question in the affirmative
holding that it was open to the Certifying Authority to entertain an
application for modification of the clause fixing the date of superan-
nuauon, the provisions in the model Standing Orders, notwithstanding.
G On the second point the High Court came to the conclusion that the
settl!'ment arrived at in conciliation proceedings was binding on the
workmen and as clause 19 of the settlement kept the service conditions
which were not changed in-tact and clause 21 of the settlement did not )..-
permit raising of any demand throwing an additional financial burden
on the IOCL, it was not permissible to modify the certified Standing
H Orders by an amendment as that would alter the service condition and
BARAUNJ REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL [AHMADI, J.] 289
increase the financial burden on the Management. In this view that the
A
High Court took it quashed the orders passed by the two authorities
below and made the rule in CWP No. 1717/87 absolute while dismis-
sing CWP No. 3417 /87 with no order as to costs. It is against this order
that the Trade Unions have approached this Court.
The Standing Orders Act was enacted to define with sufficient B
precision the conditions of employment for workers employed in
industrial establishments and to make the same known to them. The
object of the Act was to have uniform Standing Orders in respect of
the matters enumerated in the schedule to the Act regardless of the
time of their appointment. With this in view the Act was enacted to
apply to all industrial establishments wherein 100 or more workmen
were employed on any date of Jhe preceding 12 months. Within six
c
months from the date on which this enactment becomes applicable to
_ ·. an industrial establishment, the employer is obliged by Section 3 to
'>--·submit to the Certifying Officer draft Standing Orders proposed by
him for adoption in his industrial establishment. Sub-section (2) of
Section 3 lays down that in such draft Standing Orders provision shall D
be made for every matter set out in the schedule which may be applic-
able to the industrial establishment and where model Standing Orders
have been prescribed shall be, so far as practicable, in conformity with
such model. Section 4 provides that the Standing Orders shall be certi-
fiable if (a) provision is made therein for every matter set out in the
__. schedule which is applicable to the industrial establishment and (b) the E
,
Standing Orders are otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the
Act. It further casts a duty on the Certifying Officer or Appellate
Authority to adjudicate upon the fairness and reasonableness of the
provisions of any Standing Orders. On receipt of the draft Standing
Orders, section 5 requires the Certifying Officer to forward a copy
thereof to the trade union, if any, of the workmen, or where there is no F
\_ such trade union, to the workmen in such manner as may be pres-
cribed, together with a notice in the prescribed form requiring objec-
tions, if any, which the workmen desire to make to the draft Standing
Orders. Thereafter the Certifying Officer must hear the concerned
authorities and decide whether or not any modification of or addition
to the draft submitted by the employers is necessary to render the draft G
Standing Orders certifiable under the Act. He is then expected to
certify the draft Standing Orders with modifications, if any, and send
_ cl. .authenticated copies thereof in the prescribed manner to the
employer, to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the
workmen within 7 days. Section 6 provides for an appeal against the ·
order of the Certifying Officer. The Appellate Authority has to com- H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.
municate its decision to the Certifying Officer, to the employer and the
A
trade union or other prescribed representative of the workmen within
7 days from the date of its order. Section 7 provides that the Standing
Orders shall, unless an appeal is preferred, come into operation on the
expiry of 30 days from the date on which authenticated copies thereof
are sent under section 5(3) or where an appeal is preferred, on the
B expiry of 7 days from the date on which copies .of the orders of the
Appellate Authority are sent under section 6(2). Standing Orders duly
certified as above for the Barauni Refinery came into operation on 5th
December, 1964 as provided by section 7. We then come to Section 10
which provides for modification of certified Standing Orders. Sub-
section (1) thereof states that the Standing Orders finally certified
shall not, except on agreement between the employer and the work-
C men or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen be
liable to modification until the expiry of six months from the date on
which the Standing Orders or the last modification thereof came into
operation. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 reads as under:
D "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), an employer
or workman or a trade union or other representative body
of the workman may apply to the Certifying Officer to have
the standing orders modified, and such application shall be
accompanied by five copies of the modifications proposed
to be made, and where such modifications are proposed to
E be made by agreement between the employer and the '>--
workmen or a trade union or other representative body of
the workmen, a certified copy of that agreement shall be
filed along with the application." .j_
It was under this provision that clause 20 of the certified Standing
F Orders was sought to be modified.
Since the High Court has answered the first point in the affir-
mative i.e. in favour of the workmen, we do not consider it necessary
to deal with that aspect of the matter and would confine ourselves to
the second aspect which concerns the binding character of the settle-
G ment. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a
settlement as a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceedings and includes a written agreement between the employer
and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation
proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties
· thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has
H been stnt to the officer authorised in this behalf by the appropliate
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL [AHMADI, J.] 291
Government and the Conciliation Officer. Section 4 provides for the
appointment of Conciliation Officers by the appropriate Government. A
--~ Section 12( 1) says that .where any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended the Conciliation Officer may, or where the dispute
relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been
given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 casts a duty on the Conciliation Officer to B
-..( investigate the dispute and all matters connected therewith with a view to
inducing the parties to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement of the
'y dispute. If such a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation
proceedings, sub-section (3) requires the Conciliation Officer to send a
report thereof to the appropriate Government together with the
memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the dispute.
Section 18(1) says that a settlement arrived at by agreement between c
the employer and the workmen otherwise than in the course of the
·-- conciliation proceedings shall be binding on the parties to the agree-
men!. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 next provides as under:
"A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation pro- D
ceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case
where a notification has been issued under sub-section
(3-A) of Section 10-A or award of a Labour Court, Tri-
bunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable
shall be binding on-
E
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute:
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceed-
-- ings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator,
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case
may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned F
·,_ without proper cause:
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is
an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of
the establishment to which the dispute relates:
G
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is
composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in
- ), the establishment or part of the establishment as the case
may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the
dispute and all persons who subsequently become emp-
Joyed in that establishment or part." H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 3 S.C.R.
It may be seen on a plain reading of sub-sections (1) and (3) of section
A 18 that settlements are divided into two categories, namely, (i) 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 bnt the settlement belonging to the second
B 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 y
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 recognised
c majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment,
even those who 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
D 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
E par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority. The High Court
was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the settlement
---
dated 4th August, 1983 was binding on all the workmen of the Barauni
Refinery including the members of Petroleum and Chemical Mazdoor
Union.
F The settlement does not make any specific mention about the age
of retirement. Clause 19 of the settlement, however, provides that )
such terms and conditions of service as are not changed under this
settlement shall remain unchanged and operative for the period of the
settlement. The age of retirement prescribed by clause 20 of the
certified Standing Orders was undoubtedly a condition of service
G which was kept intact by clause 19 of the settlement. The provisions of
the Standing Orders Act to which we have adverted earlier clearly
show that the purpose of the certified Standing Orders is to define with
sufficient precision the conditions of employment of workman and to J:-
acquaint them with the same. The charter of demands contained
several matters touching the conditions of service including the one
H concerning the upward revision of the age of retirement. After deli-
BARAUNI REFINERY v. INDIAN OIL [AHMADI, J.] 293
beration certain conditions were altered while in respect of others no A
._~ change was considered necessary. In the case of the latter clause 19
was introduced making it clear that the conditions of service which
have not changed shall remain unchanged i.e. they will continue as
they are. That means that the demand in respect of revision of the age
of retirement was not acceded to.
B
-~
By clause 21 of the settlement extracted earlier the Union agreed
that during the period of the operation of the settlement they shall not
')" raise any demand which would throw an additional financial burden on
the management, other than bonus. Of course the ,proviso to that
clause exempted matt~~s covered under section 9A of the Industrial
Disputes Act from the application of the said clause. However, section c
9A is not attracted in the present case. The High Court was, therefore,
right·in observing: "when the settlement had been arrived at between
• ~ the workmen and the company and which is still in force, the parties
are to remain bound by the terms of the said settlement. It is only after
the settlement is terminated that the parties can raise any dispute for
fresh adjudication". The argument that the upward revision of the age D
of superannuation will not entail any financial burden cannot be
accepted. The High Court rightly points out: "workmen who remain in
service for a longer period have to be paid a larger amount by way of
salary, bonus and gratuity than workmen who may newly join in place
of retiring men". The High Court was, therefore, right in concluding
~ · · that the upward revision of the age of superannuation would throw an E
additional financial burden on the management in violation of clause
21 of the settlement. Therefore, during the operation of the settlement
it was not open to the workmen to demand a change in clause 20 of the
certified Standing Orders because any upward revision of the age of
superannuation would come in conflict with clause 19 and 21 of the
settlement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion F
~· ' reached by the High Court is unassailable.
In view. of the above we see no merit in these appeals and dismiss
them with no order as to costs.
Interim orders in each appeal will stand dissolved. G
R.S.S. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "settlement"Sign in to search