IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 24729 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL OFFICER BPL GROUP OF COMPANIES, BPL LTD., BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., BST LTD., KOOTTUPATHA, CHANDRANAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY MR.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, BPL & PSP WORKERS UNION, (CITU) METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD. 2. SECRETARY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES, MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS), BPL UNIT, PALAKKAD. 3. SECRETARY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BPL EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC), CHITTOOR ROAD, PALAKKAD. 4. CERTIFYING OFFICER UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS)ACT, 1946, DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KAKKANAD. 5. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946, REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED: 6. DEVAKI, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, SAKTHI NIVAS, NEAR GOVT. POLY TECHNIC, KODUMBA.P.O., PALAKKAD, OPERATOR BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., PALAKKAD. *IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/12/2006 IN I.A. NO. 17645/2006. *ADDL.R7 & R8 IMPLEADED: 7. V. CHANDRAN, SUDHI HOUSE, SARAYU NAGAR, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-7, OPERATOR, BPL SYSTEMS & TELECOM PVT. LTD., 8. D. PAUL, S/O. DEVASSY, `CYNCLIN', PIRUVUSALA, PALAKKAD -7, SUPERVISOR, PBT, BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., KOOTTUPATHA. *ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15/03/07 IN I.A. 3859/07. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 IMPLEADED: ` 9. T.S. SARADA DEVI, W/O. VISWANATHAN, OPERATOR BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., SREE NAGAR COLONY, MARUTHARODE, PALAKKAD. 10. ABDUL KADIR.M, S/O. K.V. MUHAMMED, SENIOR STENOGRAPHER, BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., AJEENA MANZIL, MARUTHARODE, PALAKKAD. 11. SURENDRAN.M, S/O. P.K. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, JUNIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, BPL LTD., SREEPADAM, PRATHIBHA NAGAR, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD – 13. 12. SANJEEV KUMAR.T, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ELECTRICIAN, BPL LTD., JEEVAN NAGAR, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD, *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.9 TO R.12 VIDE ORDER DTD. 11/04/07 IN I.A. NO.5316/07 W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 13 TO 15 IMPLEADED: 13. VINOD KUMAR.K.P., S/O. KUNHAPPU, FOREMAN (GRADE) BPL. LTD. (N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES, PVT. LTD), `PRATHEEKSHA', PUDUPPARIYARAM.P.O., PALAKKAD. 14. CHANDRAN.P, S/O. PALI, FOREMAN(GRADE) BPL LTD., (N.I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,) ALAKKAL HOUSE, KODUVANKUNNU, PALLATHERI, PALAKKAD. 15. MRS. ALPHONSA.V.K, W/O. JOHN, OPERATOR, BPL TELECOM PRIVATE LTD., MANGAN HOUSE, KANJIKULAM, PALAKKAD-7. * ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R.13 TO R.15 AS PER ORDER DATED 11/06/2007 IN I.A. 7441/2007. *ADDL. R.16 IMPLEADED: 16. V. CHANDRAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, SAJITHA NIVAS, THEKKUMURI, KALLEPPULLY POST, PALAKKAD, OPERATOR BPL LTD., (NI MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,). *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R.16 AS PER THE ORDER DT. 24/08/07 IN I.A. NO. 11576/2007. *ADDL. R.17 & R.18 IMPLEADED: 17. K. GOPALAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, FOREMAN (GRADE) BPL LTD., (NI MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD), `SREE DHANYA', PUDUPPARIYARAM.P.O., PALAKKAD. 18. VIJAYAN.P.R, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA MANNADIAR, OPERATOR, BPL TELECOM PRIVATE LTD., `VIPRATHISHA', KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD. *IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.17 & 18 VIDE ORDER DTD. 30/10/07 IN I.A. NO. 14326/07. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 19 TO 21 IMPLEADED: 19. C. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. T. SANKARAN NAIR, SUPERVISOR (GRADE) BPL LTD., “PRABHALAYALAM”, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE, THENKURISSI.P.O., PALAKKAD. W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: 20. K.C. MOHANDAS, S/O. CHAMIAR, SUPERVISOR, BPL LTD., `RESHMA', KURUPPATH HOUSE, CHANDRANAGAR PIRUVUSALA, PALAKKAD -7. 21. N. NARAYANAN, OPERATOR (GRADE) BPL LTD., (N.I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD), NAVALOOR KALAM, THIRUVALATHUR, KODUMBU.P.O., PALAKKAD-8. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.19 TO R.21 AS PER ORDER DATED 22/11/07 IN I.A. NO. 15326/07. *ADDL.R.22 IMPLEADED: 22. SUDEVAN.V., S/O. VELAYUDHAN, `MACHINE OPERATOR' BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., PALAKKAD, CHATHANATH KALAM, KULAVANMUKKU, COYALMANNAM, PALAKKAD. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.22 AS PER ORDER DTD. 19/02/08 IN IN I.A. 2399/08. *ADDL.R.23 IMPLEADED: 23. SWARNAKUMARI.P, W/O. KRISHNAN, PANCHACHANYAM', MARUTHAROD.P.O., PALAKKAD -7, WIRER ASSEMBLER, BPL LIMITED, BPL WORKS, PALAKKAD. *IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.23 AS PER ORDER DATED 08/08/08 IN I.A. NO. 10044/08. *ADDL.R24 & R.25 IMPLEADED: 24. VALSALAKUMARI.E, W/O. P.R. SUDEVAN, OPERATOR, BPL, LIMITED, PALAKKAD, VALSALYAM, MELEPPURAM, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD -2. W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: 25. ABDUL HAKKEEM.A, W/O. ATHAR RAWTHER, OPERATOR/BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., AKSHARA NAGAR, KARINGARAPPULLY, PALAKKAD. *IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R24 AND R.25 VIDE ORDER DATED 10/11/08 IN I.A. NO.14163/08. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 26 TO 30 IMPLEADED: 26. V. CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O. KRISHNAMENON, OPERATOR, BPL LTD., (N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD), MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, VELIKKAD POST, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. 27. VASUMATHY.G, W/O. VESUKUTTAN, OPERATOR BPL TELECOM LTD., `VOLGA', ALAMPALLAM, CHANDRNAGAR, PALAKKAD-7. 28. SETHUMADHAVAN.C, S/O. LATE T. VISWANATHAN NAIR, OPERATOR, BPL LTD., (N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD), CHEMMALA HOUSE, ODANUR, PARALI (P.O), PALAKKAD. 29. CHENTHAMARAKSHAN.T, S/O. THEETHAN, OPERATOR, BPL LTD. (N I MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD), VALEKKAD HOUSE, NECHIPPULLY.P.O., MUNDUR, PALAKKAD – 678592. 30. KALYANIKUTTY, W/O. RAMADAS, FORMAN, BPL LTD., `RAJEEVAM', VENOLI ROAD, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD -5. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R.26 TO ADDL.R.30 AS PER ORDER DTD. 09/10/09 IN I.A. 12212/09. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.T.C.MOHANDAS, R4 & R5 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM, ADDL.R6 TO R.30 BY ADV. MR. A.R. GANGADAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON 24/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE AT THE UNITS AT PALAKKAD OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE TO THE THREE UNITS AT BANGALORE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE TO THREE UNITS AT BANGALORE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE TO THREE UNITS AT BANGALORE. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R.1. DTD. 29/08/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE R.2. DTD. 15/09/03. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DTD. 06/08/91. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DTD. 08/09/94. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DTD. 15/02/1999. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 29/09/2004 PASSED BY THE R.4. IN SOC NO.3/03. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. NIL. OCTOBER,04. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE CERTIFIED STANDING ORDER DTD. 30/11/2005. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE YEAR 2002-03. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/08/06 IN SOA NO. 5/04. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE BPL COMPANY. EXT.R6.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN. EXT.R7.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE BPL TELECOM (P) LTD. TO THE P.1. W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: EXT.R8.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE BPL TELECOM (P) LTD. TO THE P.1. EXT.R9.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/03/2007 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO P.1. EXT.R.10.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/02/2007 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD. TO P.2. EXT.R.11.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/02/2007 ISSUED BY BPL (P) LTD. TO P.3. EXT.R.12.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/02/2007 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO P.2. EXT.R.13.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/03/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD. TO P.1. EXT.R.14.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/03/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD TO P.2. EXT.R.15.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/04/2007 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO P.3. EXT.R.16.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/07/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD (NI MICRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD) TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R.17.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/09/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD (NI MICRO) TO P.1. EXT.R.18.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/09/2007 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO P.2. EXT.R.19.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/09/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD (NI MICRO) TO P.1. EXT.R.20.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 29/09/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD TO P.2. EXT.R21.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/10/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD (NI MICRO) TO P.3. EXT.R22.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/11/2007 ISSUED BY BPL LTD., PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R23.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/05/2008 ISSUED BY BPL LTD., PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R.24.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/09/2008 ISSUED BY BPL LTD., PALAKKAD TO THE P.1. EXT.R.25.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/10/2008 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD TO P.2. EXT.R.26.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/08/2009 ISSUED BY BPL LTD., (NI MICRO TECH.PVT. LTD), TO P.1. W.P.(C). NO.24729/2006-R: EXT.R.27.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/08/2009 ISSUED BY BPL TELECOM (P) LTD., TO P.2. EXT.R.28.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/08/2009 ISSUED BY BPL LTD. (N I MICRO TECH.PVT. LTD), TO P.3. EXT.R.29.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/08/2009 ISSUED BY BPL LTD., (N I MICRO TECH. PVT. LTD), TO FOURTH PETITIONER. EXT.R.30.A: COPY OF THE LETTE DTD. 09/09/2009 ISSUED BY BPL LTD TO P.5. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.24729 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition arises under the Industrial Employment Standing (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is the employer and respondents 1 to 3 are Unions of employees of the petitioner. The 1st and 2nd respondents Unions filed two applications before the 4th respondent-certifying officer, under Section 10 of the Act, for modification of clause 48 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the petitioner, by increasing the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years and also for addition of a clause regarding prevention of sexual harassment of women employees, which was allowed by the 4th respondent by Ext.P10 order. The petitioner's appeal against the raising of the retirement age in Ext.P10 order was rejected by the 5th respondent appellate authority under the Act, by Ext.P14 order. The petitioner-employer is challenging Exts.P10 and P14 orders in this writ petition. The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition may be summarised as under. 2. The petitioner's company has units all over India. The service conditions of the employees of these units are governed by standing orders certified under the Act. Ext.P1 is the certified standing w.p.c.24729/06 2 orders applicable to the employees of the unit at Palakkad, modification of clause 48 of which is the subject matter of this writ petition. The Standing Orders of three other units of the petitioner at Bangalore are Exts.P2, P3 and P4. In all these Standing Orders the retirement age of the employees is fixed as 55 years. In August/September 2003, by Exts.P5 and P6, respondents 1 and 2 filed applications for two modifications in the Standing Orders applicable to the Palakkad unit to enhance the retirement age of the employees from 55 years to 58 years and to introduce a clause relating to prevention of sexual harassment of women employees. The reasons for seeking the modifications given in Ext.P5 were that the Standing Orders were drafted without considering the situations prevalent, the claims of the workers and without discussions with the Unions' representatives only to benefit the management. They demanded that the same should be modified commensurate with the changed times to benefit the employees also. In Ext.P6, no specific reasons were mentioned. The petitioner opposed the modification regarding retirement age on the following grounds: (a) The existing retirement age was fixed taking into account the nature of the work performed by the workers; (b) Being an industry engaged in the manufacture of precision electronic instruments, the work of the establishment called for a high w.p.c.24729/06 3 degree of skill and dexterity. (c) The job requirements are good eye sight, nimbleness of fingers, good memory and speed. Therese qualities would diminish by age affecting the efficiency of the employees and therefore further enhancement of age of retirement of the employees would adversely affect the quality and out put of the products manufactured by the petitioner. (d) The financial position of the company is very weak, which does not permit the company to shoulder any additional financial burden which would result in enhancement of the age of retirement. The company is progressively incurring heavy losses which has mounted to Rs.273 crores in 2005-06. (e) The unions had raised a demand for enhancement of the retirement age in their charter of demands which contained several other demands also. In respect of those demands Exts.P7, P8 and P9 memoranda of settlement were entered into wherein it has been specifically provided that all issues not expressly settled therein shall be treated as withdrawn, with a further clause that the unions will not raise any demands during the period of validity of the settlement which involved additional financial commitment to the petitioner. Before the 4th respondent the unions supported their claims on the following grounds: w.p.c.24729/06 4 (a) In almost all industrial units in Palakkad District, the retirement age of workmen is 58 years. In similar electronic manufacturing units like ITI Palakkad and OEN company, Ernakulam, the retirement age is 58 years. (b) The model Standing Orders prescribed under the Kerala (Industrial Employment) Standing Orders Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the retirement age is fixed as 58 years. (c) As per the employees Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, an employee would become entitled to pension only after completion of 58 years. Therefore, if the employees are retired at 55 years they would be left with no means of sustenance for 3 years. (d) The management themselves are allowing some employees to continue upto 58 years for which discretion is vested in the management as per the existing Standing Orders themselves. Accepting the demand of the unions and rejecting the contentions of the management the 4th respondent directed modification of the Standing Orders as requested by the unions by Ext.P10 order, on the ground that the retirement age of 55 years is not in conformity with the Model Standing Orders in the Schedule to the Rules and if the retirement age is 55 years the employees would have to wait for 3 years to become eligible for pension under the Employees' Pension w.p.c.24729/06 5 Scheme. The management challenged Ext.P10 order in Ext.P11 appeal before the 5th respondent. In the appeal, in addition to raising the objections raised before the Certifying Officer, the petitioner also pointed out that a similar demand was raised by the workers of the Bangalore unit of the company, which, although originally allowed by the certifying officer, the Appellate Authority, namely the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, set aside the order restoring the retirement age as 55 years. According to the petitioner, since the employees are transferable from one unit to another, if retirement age is different in two units, it would lead to anomalous results when employees are transferred from one unit to another. However, the appeal did not find favour with the 5th respondent who dismissed the same, by Ext.P14 order, relying on the Model Standing Orders and the retirement age in similar industries, the Central Government Service and in services in some other States in India. That led to this writ petition challenging Exts.P10 and P14 orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties with reference to the case law cited before me. 4. At the outset I must state that the reasoning adopted by the Certifying Officer and appellate authority that since the age of retirement fixed in the original Standing Orders is not in conformity with the Model Standing Orders, it is necessary to refix the age of w.p.c.24729/06 6 retirement in conformity with the Model Standing Orders is wrong in so far as it is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others, (1999) 1 SCC 626, wherein the law has been stated thus in paragraphs 35 to 38: “35. The contention of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 that the Standing Orders as made by the appellant must conform to the Model Standing Orders cannot be accepted. It is true that originally the jurisdiction of the Certifying Officer as also that of the appellate authority was very limited and the only jurisdiction available to them under the Act was to see whether the Standing Orders made by the establishment and submitted for their certification conformed to the Model Standing Orders. This required the process of comparison of the Draft Standing Orders with the Model Standing Orders and on comparison, if it was found that the Draft Standing Orders were in conformity with the Model Standing Orders, the same would be certified even if they were not reasonable or fair. The workmen practically had no say in the matter and they would not be listened even if they agitated that the Draft Standing Orders were not fair or reasonable. 36. In 1956, radical changes were introduced in the Act by Parliament as a result of which not only the scope of the Act was widened, but jurisdiction was also conferred upon the Certifying Officer as also the appellate authority to adjudicate upon and decide the question relating to fairness or reasonableness of any provision of the Standing Orders. 37. In the instant case, the Standing Orders as finally certified cannot be said either to be not in consonance with the Model Standing Orders or unreasonable or unfair. 38. The Model Standing Orders, no doubt, provided that a delinquent employee could be represented in the disciplinary proceedings through another employee who may not be the employee of the parent establishment to which the delinquent belongs and may be an employee elsewhere, though he may be a member of the trade union, but this rule of representation has not been disturbed by the Certified Standing Order, inasmuch as it still provides that the delinquent employee can be represented in the disciplinary proceedings through an employee. The only embargo is that the representative should be an employee of the parent establishment. The choice of the delinquent in selecting his representative is affected only to the extent that the representative has to be a co-employee of the same establishment in which the delinquent is w.p.c.24729/06 7 employed. There appears to be some logic behind this as a co-employee would be fully aware of the conditions prevailing in the parent establishment, its Service Rules, including the Standing Orders, and would be in a better position, that an outsider, to assist the delinquent in the domestic proceedings for a fair and early disposal. The basic features of the Model Standing Orders are thus retained and the right of representation in the disciplinary proceedings through another employee is not altered, affected or taken away. The Standing Orders conform to all standards of reasonableness and fairness and, therefore, the appellate authority was fully justified in certifying the Draft Standing Orders as submitted by the appellant.” (underlining supplied) Model Standing Orders only lay down the basic features which should be contained in a certified Standing Orders. It is not necessary that every minute details of the service conditions in the Model Standing Orders should be incorporated in the Standing Orders before the same can be certified. In fact service conditions of employees differ from State to State, industry to industry and employees to employees depending upon very many factors such as the nature of the industry, the nature of the work assigned to the employees, the working conditions available in that part of the country where the industry is situated, and the like. The scheme of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the employer and the workers can have agreed service conditions in the Standing Orders also provided the same are not against the provisions of the Act, as is clear from sub section (2) of Section 10, which provides that where modifications are proposed by agreement between the employer and workmen, a certified copy of the agreement shall be filed with application for modification. What the certifying w.p.c.24729/06 8 officer is to ascertain is whether the Standing Orders conform to all standards of reasonableness and fairness. As the nomenclature itself suggests, Model Standing Orders constitute only a model frame work giving the basic features. In the Standing Orders to be certified the management can include all fair and reasonable service conditions, subject, of course, to the provisions of the Act, the certifiability of which has to be decided by the Certifying Officer based on established principles. Even if the clauses included do not conform to the Model Standing Orders, if the same are fair and reasonable and are not opposed to the provisions of the Act, the same can be certified. 5. Even otherwise, the Model Standing Orders provided in the Schedule to the Kerala Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Rules do not provide that the age of retirement should be 58 years. Sub clause (3) of Clause 3A of the Model Standing Orders provides thus: “3A...... (3) Age of Retirement The age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which is binding on both the workman and the employer. Where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age by the workman.” That itself shows that the retirement age can be fixed by agreement. In this case, in the Standing Orders as originally certified retirement age was fixed as 55 years as early as in 1968. Since the workmen had w.p.c.24729/06 9 not opposed the same, the same was accepted as fair and reasonable by the Certifying Officer. Therefore, there is implied agreement by the workmen for the retirement age so fixed. Further the management has a case that in view of Exts.P7 to P9 memoranda of settlement, which were entered into after conciliation conferences on a charter of demands, which included a demand for raising of retirement age to 58 years, with a clause that all issues settled by the same shall be treated as withdrawn, the retirement age of 55 years should be treated as fixed by agreement. As such, I am of opinion that the clause in the Model Standing Orders cannot be treated as the criterion for deciding the issue either way. 6. The next question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether a certified standing order can be modified under Section 10 only if the party seeking the modification shows any change of circumstances subsequent to the earlier certification. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Management, Shahadara (Delhi) Shaharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd., v. S.S.Railway Workers' Union, AIR 1969 SC 513, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of Section 10 of the Act. Since the decision encompasses every aspect of the scope of the section looking at various angles, which may be useful for future reference also, I am inclined to quote extensively from the same, sacrificing the good old virtue of brevity. The Apex Court held w.p.c.24729/06 10 thus on the question: '5. Counsel conceded, and did so rightly, that there is no express provision in any one of these sections restricting the right to apply for modification or the power of the authorities to allow modification only on proof of a change of circumstances. The only limitations to the power are the reasonableness or fairness which of course must be established and the expiry of six months after the date of the standing orders or their last modifications coming into operation. In the absence of any such express restriction we should then ask ourselves whether there is in any of these sections anything which would indicate such a restriction by necessary implication. In that connection the only word which can point to such a restriction, according to counsel, is the word 'final' In Sec. 6 so that the contention reduces itself to this that by making the order of the appellate authority final under Section 6, Parliament intended by necessary implication that the bar of finality can only be removed if new circumstances arise which necessitate or justify modification. xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. The Act was passed because the legislature thought that in many industrial establishments the conditions of service were not uniform and sometimes were not even reduced to writing. This led to conflicts resulting in unnecessary industrial disputes. The object of passing the Act was thus to require employers to define with certainty the conditions of service in their establishments and to require them to reduce them to writing and to get them compulsorily certified. The matters in respect of which the conditions of employment had to be certified were specified in