Secretary, Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Tholilalar Munnetra Sangam vs Labour Court (Appellate Authority Under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946) and Others

Sathiadev, J.—The Secretary, Cholan Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, has filed this writ petition to quash the order in

Appeal No. 1 of 1976 on the file of the first respondent herein. The second respondent, being the management, contested four standing orders

certified by the Certifying Officer under Central Act XX of 1946. Two standing orders, namely, Standing Order 3(ii) fixing the period of probation

and Standing Order 31, fixing the age of superannuation at 55, had come up for consideration in this writ petition. It was canvassed before the first

respondent herein, that there should not be any classification of skilled and unskilled workmen. The first respondent concluded that, there was no

justification for such classification being made for fixing the period of probation and finally held that the period of probation shall be nine months.

The allegation of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that the period fixed has no bearing to the nature of work to be discharged by skilled

and unskilled workmen and that the period of probation may be fixed at 3 months.

In W.P. No. 2523 of 1978--P.T.C. Ltd., Madras v. Appellate Authority, under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946,

Madras and Ors.--while dealing with this question, we held that there was no justification for any classification as skilled and unskilled, and that the

period of probation could be fixed at six months, which would be fair and reasonable. The petitioner in W.P. 2523 of 1978, namely, Pallavan

Transport Corporation Limited, and the second respondent in this writ petition No. 597 of 1977, namely, Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited

are sister Corporations. It would not, therefore, be proper to fix a different period of probation in this case. Therefore, Standing Order 3(ii) will be

recast to provide for only six months, as period of probation,

Then came the question regarding the age of superannuation. In this case, it was alleged by the workmen that the certified standing orders had

correctly provided for 58 years as the age of superannuation, taking into consideration of what had been obtaining in S.R.V.S. in respect of some

categories of workmen and the nature of work discharged by them. The management contends that to fix the age of superannuation at 58 years,

will not be justified in respect of workmen who do some arduous jobs, and in this case, workmen being bound by the settlement arrived at u/s

18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act on 3-6-1975, they cannot plead for different age being provided.

The first respondent herein reduced the age of superannuation to 55 years on the following grounds:

(1) Most of the employees are drivers and conductors and, therefore, they get physically exhausted early in life; (2) in Cheran Transport

Corporation, the age had been reduced to 55 years; and (3) workers having bound themselves by agreement u/s 18(1) they cannot ask for a

higher age limit to be fixed.

Dealing with the aspect of superannuation in W.P. No. 2523 of 1978, taking into account the decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has

been held that in respect of industrial workers, a higher age limit can be fixed, the order of the Appellate Authority in that case fixing the age of

superannuation at 58 years had been upheld, except for clerical and administrative staff, who would be bound by the settlement u/s 12(3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, for the period covered by it.

The grounds taken into account by the first respondent herein, cannot be considered as proper because the settlement u/s 18(1) of the Act,

dated 3-6-1975 itself reads as:

Subject to the provisions of Standing Orders"" and, therefore, certifying Authority has the jurisdiction to go into the fairness and reasonableness of

fixation of age of superannuation. For Pandian Roadways Corporation, the age of superannuation having been fixed at 58 years, it will not be

correct to fix the age of superannuation at 55 in this case, as the service conditions in second respondent-Corporation being no different from that

of Pandian Roadways Corporation and the petitioner-Corporation in W.P. 2523 of 1978. Therefore, in this case also the age of superannuation

has to be fixed at 58 years. Regarding the category of employees covered by S.R.V.S. the period lapsed, by 1-4-1977, and will not have any

bearing. There is no need to provide for any specific provision for such workmen. In this view, this writ petition is allowed in respect of the

standing orders relating to probation and age of superannuation alone. No costs.