IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38787 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANDREW GOMES, S/O MICHAEL GOEAZ, CHARGE HAND WELDER IN TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD. KOCHU VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 21, RESIDING AT TC 32/21(1), NEAR VELI TOURIST VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 21. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 21 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE MANAGER (PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATION) THE TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-21. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38787 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Charge Hand Welder working under the respondents. He is aggrieved by the order superannuating the petitioner with effect from 31.12.2010 on attaining 58 years of age. According to the petitioner, as per the standing orders applicable as amended by Ext.P3 order dated 11.5.2010, the age of retirement has been enhanced to 60 years in the second respondent's establishment and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be retired at the age of 58 years and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till he attains 60 years of age. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent also. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that although Ext.P3 order has been passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central), Cochin directing amendment of the standing orders enhancing the age of retirement of the workers of the second respondents as 60 years, W.P.(C)No.38787/10 2 against Ext.P3 order, the second respondent has filed an appeal, which is pending. Therefore, by virtue of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Ext.P3 order of amendment has not yet come into force and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service beyond 58 years of age is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. On 31.12.2010 this Court has, pending consideration of the writ petition for admission, ordered status quo till today. Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 reads thus: “7.Date of operation of standing orders.- Standing orders shall, unless an appeal is preferred under section 6, come into operation on the expiry of thirty days from the date on which authenticated copies thereof are sent under sub-section (3) of section 5, or where an appeal as aforesaid is preferred, on the expiry of seven days from the date on which copies of the order of the appellate authority are sent under sub-section (2) of section 6.” Admittedly, an appeal has been filed against Ext.P3 order by the second respondent, which has not yet been disposed of. Therefore, prima facie until seven days after the copies of the order of the appellate authority are sent under sub section 2 of section 6, Ext.P3 order does not take effect. But, I am of opinion that because of that provision, the petitioner should W.P.(C)No.38787/10 3 not be allowed to suffer, in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The second respondent shall allow the petitioner to continue in service pending consideration of the appeal stated to have been filed by the second respondent against Ext.P3 order. But, he shall not be paid salary for the present. If ultimately the appeal is dismissed, the petitioner shall be paid salary for the period he worked also and he shall be continued in service till 60 years of age subject of course to the right of the second respondent to challenge the appellate order before the appropriate authorities. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.38787/10 4 W.P.(C)No.38787/10 5