WIPRO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING Vs. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANGALORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has called into question the order dated 3-3-2014 (Annexure-K) issued by the first respondent-Additional Labour Commissioner (Administration) and Appellate Authority. The facts of the case in brief are that as per Clause 23 of the Standing Orders of the petitioner-Company, the retirement age of its employees is 58 years. The second respondent-Union filed an application before the Certifying Officer under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 ('the said Act' for short), seeking the amendment of the Standing Orders for raising the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. The Certifying Officer passed the order dated 7-8-2013 (Annexure-E) rejecting the second respondent's application. The second respondent challenged the same before the first respondent by way of appeal. The first respondent allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 3-3-2014. Sri C.K. Subramanya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent-Appellate Authority has failed to consider the various contentions raised by the petitioner. He submits that the first respondent has taken the decision to raise the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years without inspecting the work place and without ascertaining the nature of the work of the petitioner's employees. He submits that the concerned officer of the petitioner has filed the affidavit stating that the activities in the petitioner's undertaking are of hazardous nature. Its employees require quick reaction, sharp eyesight, accurate audibility and alertness throughout the working hours. The nature of the job is such that it causes both physical and mental strain.

(2.) He submits that the respondent 2 has not chosen to cross-examine the deponent of the said affidavit. The affidavit is not even referred to by the first respondent in his order.

(3.) He submits that the age of retirement cannot be determined mechanically. Section 4 of the said Act requires the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority to adjudicate upon the fairness and reasonableness of the provisions of the Standing Orders. He submits that under Section 11 of the said Act the authorities have all the powers of a Civil Court.