IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32319 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MOHAN.R., T.C.NO.42/954 (4), POOVANTHOTTATHU VEEDU, MUTTATHARA, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURENDRAN N., SOBHA BHAVAN, KUMIZHI KARA, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.D.SAJEEV, SMT.LIGEY ANTONY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M/S.TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER (PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATION) TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., THIRUVANNATHAPURAM-21. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR R2 & R3 BY SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.32319/2010 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/05/2010 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE STANDING ORDERS FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.51(2)/2009-B1 DTD. 28/04/2010 OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL). P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/05/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, STATE OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.SIRIJAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners were employees of the 2nd respondent Company. They were superannuated on attaining 58 years of age. According to them the standing orders applicable to them have been amended by Exhibit P4 order dated 28.04.2010 by the certifying Officer where by the retirement age was enhanced to 60 years. The petitioners were superannuated after passing of Exhibit P4 order. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, commanding the 2nd respondent to implement Ext.P4 order in the case of the petitioners and thereby reinstate them in service, forthwith. ii) To declare that petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P4 order since they have retired after the date of amendment ordered in clause 12(c) of the standing orders which extend the retirement age as on the last date of the month in which the petitioners attains the age of 60 years. W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010 2 iii) To declare that the action on the part of the respondents 2 & 3 ordering retirement to the petitioners while allowing their juniors to continue in service is discriminatory and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners. 2. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that under Section 7 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, standing orders would not come into operation until after expiry of seven days from the date on which copies of the order of the appellate authority are sent to the employer under sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Act. According to them, they have already preferred an appeal against Exhibit P4. It has not yet been disposed of and therefore the amendment of the standing orders have not yet come into force is their contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: “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 W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010 3 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”. 4. It is not disputed before me that the appeal has not yet been disposed of. That being so in view of Section 7, the amended provision has not yet come into force. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Retirement of the petitioners would be subject to the result of the appeal. If ultimately the appeal is dismissed, the petitioners would be entitled to be re- instated in service and also for all service benefits for the period they were kept out of service after completing 58 years of age. The writ petition is disposed of, as above. S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE. rkc