1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4276 of 2007 Solapur District Industrial Co-op. Bank Ltd. Petitioner Vs. Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh & anr. Respondents Mr.Pankaj Das for petitioner. Mrs.Anjali Helekar for Resp.no.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 18, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Das, the larned counsel for the petitioner - Bank. Mrs.Helekar appears for the respondent - Union. The respondent no.2 is not a necessary party and has rightly been deleted. 2. As per the certified Standing Orders as applicable to the Co-operative Banking Industry in the local area of Solapur (certified on 27/12/1957) the age of retirement of the employees covered by the said Standing Orders was fixed at 55 years in terms of Standing Order No.22(7). Almost more than forty years later the Union submitted an application on 4/5/1999 and prayed for amendment of the said 2 Standing Order No.22(7) so as to enhance the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years. The notices were issued to the Petitioner - Bank as well as the other member Banks and proceedings were fixed before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 18/5/1999, 21/5/1999, 24/5/1999 and 27/5/1999. Both the parties were heard and finally by the order dated 29/5/1999 the application submitted by the Union was allowed by amending the Standing Order No.22(7) and the age of retirement was enhanced from 55 to 58 years. This order came to be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the said appeal came to be registered as Appeal (BIR) No.8 of 1999. The learned Member of the Industrial Court at Solapur was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by his judgment and order dated 20/1/2007 and hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Conceptually the enhancement of superannuation age from 55 to 58 years does not cause any inconvenience to any employer - Bank ordinarily looking at the nature of work assigned to their employees. On the other hand, the employer will have more experienced people continuing with the Bank for 3 a longer period of service and with the developed medical facilities being available all around at affordable costs, the age span has generally gone up and most of the employees are fit and healthy even at the age of sixty years. As of now in the State of Maharashtra, the retirement age for the Class III and Class IV employees in the Government Departments is 58 years. 4. Before the Industrial Court the challenge raised was more on procedural aspect and it was contended that the amendment in the Standing Orders as submitted by the Union could not have been accepted unless a thirty days period had gone by and the Bank representatives were allowed to put up their case. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court is crystal clear and it shows that the Deputy Labour Commissioner offered more than three dates for the Bank to file reply. The impugned order clearly shows that it has not violated the principles of natural justice nor has it been passed arbitrarily. The lower Appellate Court has considered the record produced, the contentions advanced by both the parties and the scheme of Rule 49 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947. Though the 4 amendment draft has been accepted and the amendment has been carried out within about three to four weeks from the submission of the amendment application by the Union, that by itself would not be a sufficient ground to cause interference in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has referred to the proceedings and noted that a notice was issued on 6/5/1999 and it was adjourned on 18/5/1999 on the application submitted by the Bank. Against the proceedings were adjourned on the request of the respondent to 21/5/1999 and 24/5/1999. 5. Rule 49 has been reproduced in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court and it needs to be noted that the Court was not dealing with an amendment application submitted by the employer. Instead before the Industrial Court, an application submitted by the Union was under consideration and, therefore, the Industrial Court was not very convinced whether the Bank could rely upon the provisions of Rule 49. 6. I am, therefore, satisfied that the amendment in Standing Order No.22(7) allowed by the Deputy 5 Labour Commissioner so as to enhance the age of superannuation from 55 years to 58 years dos not call for interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and hence it must fail at the threshold. 7. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H.MARL