S DEVADIGA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute which arises in these writ petitions between the workmen and the management could have been avoided if the management had acted with a little more alacrity.

(2.) THE facts very briefly are: The workmen of the Manipal Power Press, Manipal, filed an application before the certifying officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The workmen in their application sought to fix the age of retirement of the workmen at 62 years. An application was given to the certifying officer on November 25, 1996, for amendment of Clause 16(e) of the earlier Standing Orders. The earlier Standing Order was that the management in its discretion could retire from its service any workman who has completed 30 years of service or has attained the age of 55 years, whichever event occurs first. The amendment sought for by the workmen was that the age of retirement should be enhanced to 62 years. The certifying officer did not accept the case of the workmen in toto. But, relying on the model Standing Orders under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961, read with Schedule 15 -A certified that the age for retirement or superannuation of the workman shall be 58 years and not 62 years as sought for by the workmen.

(3.) WHEN the application was made in 1996, the certifying officer under the Act did not proceed with the matter. Ultimately, the workmen had moved this Court in W.P. No. 4227 of 1998. This Court by an order dated February 12, 1998, directed the certifying officer to dispose of the matter expeditiously. It is in these circumstances the certifying officer passed an order dated June 17, 1998, holding that the age of retirement of the workmen in the establishment shall be 58 years and not 55 years as it stood earlier.