MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., Vs. PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY ADITYA BIRLA EMPLOYEES’ UNION GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal by M/s. Grasim Industries Limited [the appellant] is as against the writ Court's order dtd. 14/2/2023 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 dtd. 14/8/2018 in the proceedings No.4/2017 [Annexure-H] and the third respondent's order dtd. 30/10/2019 [Annexure-K]. The second respondent's order dtd. 14/8/2018 is under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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:

(3.) This Court must now recount the factual circumstances leading to the present intra-court appeal. The appellant's Standing Order[The Chemical Division was known as Ballarpur Industries Limited, but the second respondent, in the impugned order dtd. 14/8/2018, has permitted the change in name in the CSO while enhancing the retirement age to 60 years.] is certified w.e.f. 19/4/1976 under Sec. 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 dtd. 5/11/1985. 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 discussed but not agreed upon.[ 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.] The Memorandum of Settlement dtd. 5/7/2015 [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. 1/4/2015 and will remain in force till 31/3/2018 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 dtd. 2/1/2015. 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 except to the extent modified in this settlement will continue to be operative and effective.