GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are unions of workmen of the Fertilisers and Chemicals, Travancore Limited (FACT Ltd. for short). They are challenging the awards in I.D. Nos. 10/2004 & 4/2005 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, wherein they were the management. Exhibit P-18 in WP (C) No 33938/2008 is the award in I.D. No 10/2034 and Exhibit P-12 in the other writ petition is the award in I.D. No. 4/2005. The issues referred for adjudication in both I.D.s are more or less identical although the wordings of the reference orders vary. Therefore, these writ petitions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The issue referred for adjudication in I.D. No. 10/2004 is "whether the action of the management of FACT, Ltd. Udyogamandal in having reduced the age of superannuation of pre-1978 workers from 60 years to 58 years is justifiable or not If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to - The issue referred for adjudication in I.D. No. 4/2005 is "whether the action of the management of FACT Ltd. Udyogamandal Ltd. terminating the service of 42 workmen is justifiable or not If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to - In both disputes, the action of the management which gave rise to the two I.D.s is the same viz. the retirement age of the workmen in both IDs was reduced from 60 years to 58 years, consequent to which they were terminated from service as superannuated. The facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions may be summarised below:

(2.) On January 23, 1978, the unions and the management of the Udyogamandal Division of FACT Limited entered into a long term settlement as per which the management and unions agreed to retain the retirement age of all workers who were in service as on January 23, 1978 as 60 years and to reduce the retirement age of workmen who enters service thereafter as 58 years. A similar settlement was entered into on 16.08.1978 in respect of workmen of Kochi Division as per which workmen who were on the rolls of the company: as on January 23, 1978 were allowed to have their retirement age as 60 years and others as 58 years. On May 27, 1928, the Government of India instructed the management to enhance the retirement age of all workmen to 60 years. But later, on July 11, 2001, by Exhibit P-1 in W.P.(C) No. 2556/2009, the retirement age of employees other than those who were in service as on January 23, 1978 was rolled back to 58 years. Pursuant thereto, by Exhibit P-2 in that writ petition the company implemented the same. Consequently amendments were made to the standing orders by Exhibit P-3 order of the authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. While so, the company declared a voluntary retirement scheme. Although the workmen involved in these writ petitions applied for voluntary retirement as per a Voluntary Retirement Scheme declared by the management, they were not allowed to retire voluntarily pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. But suddenly the management took a decision to roll back the retirement age of pre-1978 employees also to 58 years. The Government of India, by Exhibit P-5 (in W.P. (C) No. 2556/2009) communication accorded approval for the said decision of the management, but with the condition that the FACT management will fulfill legal requirements, if any, while implementing the decision. But it appears that subsequently the Government of India withdrew the said condition of fulfilling legal requirements while implementing the decision. By Exhibit P-6 (in W.P.(C) No. 2556/2009) dated April 29, 2003, that decision was put into effect and therefore all those persons who had already attained age of 58 years were summarily terminated from service on superannuation. The workmen challenged the said decision by filing O.P. Nos. 14598, 14599 and 14976/2003. By Exhibit P-7 judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court refused to interfere with the order of the management in reducing the retirement age of pre-1978 employees also to 58 years, but held that it shall be open to the petitioners to work out their other remedies available under law. The workmen challenged the judgment by filing writ appeal Nos. 1565, 1595, 2112 and 2113/2003. By Exhibit P-8 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thereafter, the workmen challenged the decision of the Division Bench by filing SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the workmen raised the above disputes which were referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Ernakulam. In the industrial disputes, the Labour Court raised the following points for consideration:

(3.) The contention of the workmen is that on point Nos. 2, 3 and 4 the decision of the Labour Court is clearly perverse. According to them, the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court in Exhibits P-7 and P-8 judgments did not actually consider the issues involved on merits. They have simply refused to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relegating the parties to the remedy by way of raising an industrial disputes in respect of the same subject matter. Therefore, the decision of the Labour Court that the reference is barred by res judicata is clearly perverse.