Case: Workmen of Kankanee Colliery and Amlabad Colliery (Of Bhowra Kankanee Collieries, Limited ) Vs. Their Employers and Another

Bhargava, J. 1. This is a consolidated appeal brought by special leave by the workman of the Kankanee Colliery of Bhowra Kankanee Collieries, Ltd., and Amlabad Colliery of Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Company, Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the appellant, against an award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The respondents in the two appeals are the Collieries Companies, Ltd., mentioned above. 2. The facts show that these two collieries, of which the managing agents were Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., were taken over by Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., sometime in the year 1954. At that time, a dispute arose between the workmen and the new owners about the terms and conditions of service, and the service rules which were to apply to the workmen of these collieries after this transfer of ownership. The workmen served a strike notice containing their charter of demands on 24 December 1954. Eight demands were raised in that charter. For purposes of this appeal we need only mention demands (1), (2), (3) and (5) which were as follows : "(1) That the service conditions of all the employees including their grading, increments, leave, etc., should remain unaltered under the management of the purchaser company. (2) That the existing facilities and the privileges including medical facilities, free supply of kerosene, electricity, accommodation and other materials should not be curtailed after 31 December 1954. (3) That the privilege of pension scheme which forms one of the service conditions should remain in force even after the change-over and the employees who are being retrenched or forced to retire should get retrenchment compensation over and above the pension due. The purchaser-company should also be held responsible for payment of all such pensions.(5) That the employees of the above four collieries should not be governed by the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd. The certified standing orders in force for the colliery should only be followed." On 14 January 1955, there was an agreement between the employers and the workmen which was reduced into writing. This agreement contained five terms out of which only terms (3) and (5) need be mentioned as they are relevant for purposes of this appeal; they are as follows : "(3) Agreed that the existing service conditions and facilities will be continued, excepting pension, the responsibility for which will be borne by Eastern Coal Company, Ltd., according to the existing rules and that the question of payment of pension is now left over for amicable settlement between Eastern Coal Company, Ltd., and the union. Agreed also that Bhowra Kankanee collieries, Ltd., will have no liability regarding pension for past and future services of workmen. (5) Agreed that the other demands are dropped by the union." 3. After this agreement had been arrived at, no notice was served by either party terminating this settlement and, consequently, this settlement continued in force. While it was still in force, the employers compulsorily retired five workmen working in Amlabad Colliery in the ground that they had attained the age of 55 years, which was the age of superannuation laid down in rule 11(c) of the rules to the employees of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd. Thereupon, the workmen raised an industrial dispute and challenged this order of compulsory retirement of the eleven workmen on the ground that the workmen were not governed by the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros. and were, on the other hand, governed by the earlier rules which were applicable to the employees of the Kankanee Colliery and the Amlabad Colliery prior to their being taken over by Karamchand Thapar & Bros. The industrial disputes relating to the compulsory retirement of these eleven workmen of the two collieries were referred by the Central Government to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The two disputes were taken together by the industrial tribunal as the question involved was identical.On behalf of the employers, a preliminary objection was raised that the earlier settlement dated 14 January, 1955 was still in force, and, under that agreement, the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros. had become applicable to those workmen. The workmen could not, therefore, raise these industrial disputes while that settlement was still in force. The tribunal accepted this plea and held that the two references were invalid and decided those references in favour of the employees. The present appeal is directed against that order of the tribunal. 4. In this special appeal, again, the main point urged before us was that the tribunal was incorrect in holding that under the agreement dated 14 January, 1955, the service rules or Karamchand Thapar & Bros. became applicable to these workmen. The view taken by the tribunal was that demand (5) in the charter of demands had been dropped by the workmen under Cl. (5) of the agreement and, consequently, this plea was no longer open to the workmen. On proper interpretation of the charter of demands and the terms of the agreement, we are of the view that the tribunal was correct in giving this decision. 5. In the charter of demands the workmen themselves made a distinction between service conditions of the employees and the existing facilities and privileges on the one side and service rules and other conditions contained in the standing orders on the other side. In demands (1), (2) and (3) there was mention of service conditions, including their grading, increments, leave, etc., as also of existing facilities and privileges including medical facilities, free supply of kerosene, electricity, accommodation and other materials, and the pension scheme. In demand (5) the employees separately desired that the employees should not be governed by the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., and that the certified standing orders earlier in force in the collieries should only be followed. Normally, the contention raised on behalf of the employees that service conditions include all service rules would be correct, but, in this case, it it clear that the workmen had themselves made a distinction between service conditions, facilities, privileges and pension scheme mentioned in demands (1), (2) and (3) and the service rules mentioned in demand (5). The service rules mentioned in demand (5) were clearly indicated as not being covered by the service conditions facilities and privileges mentioned in demands (1) to (3). In the agreement, under Cl. (3), it was laid down that the existing service conditions and facilities were to be continued, excepting pension. In that clause, there was no mention of service rules or standing orders. It is clear that Cl. (3) of the agreement related to demands (1) to (3), and that is why in this clause the expression used was "service conditions and facilities" and there was no mention of either service rules or standing orders. A distinction having been made between service conditions and facilities mentioned in demands (1) to (3), and the service rules and standing orders mentioned in demand (5), it has to be held that Cl. (3) of the agreement only laid down the continuance of those service conditions and facilities which fell within the scope of demands (1), (2) and (3), and did not include service rules and standing orders which were separately the subject-matter of demand (5). Under Cl. (5) of the agreement, all order demands, which were not specifically mentioned in the earlier four clauses, were dropped by the union. Demand (5) was thus one of the demands dropped, which necessarily means that the employees gave up their demand that they should not be governed by the service rules or Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Their dropping of this demand clearly meant that they agreed to be governed by those service rules, and, in these circumstances, the tribunal was perfectly right in holding that while this agreement was still in force, the workmen were not entitled to raise an industrial dispute challenging the applicability of the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros, to them.Learned counsel for the appellant, in the alternative, urged that the tribunal, after holding that the settlement was binding, should have proceeded further to decide whether the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., including rule 11(c) relating to retirement on superannuation at the age of 55 years, did or did not become applicable to the workmen who were earlier in service and whose earlier service rules in the collieries did not lay down any such age of superannuation. We do not think that in this case the tribunal was called upon to go any further into this aspect. As we have held earlier, the terms of the agreement show that the workmen then employed in the collieries agreed to be governed by the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd. These rules included the rule relating to superannuation at the age of 55 years. The workmen having themselves acquiesced into applicability of these rules under this agreement, there was no bar to applying that rule even to those workmen who were earlier in service and were taken over by Karamchand Thapar & Bros. when they acquired the collieries. 6. In this connexion, learned counsel for the appellants referred us to the decisions of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams (Private), Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others [1959 - II L.L.J. 405] and in Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co., Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co., Ltd. [1964 - II L.L.J. 146]. In both those cases, this Court had occasion to consider the applicability of a rule relating to retirement on superannuation to workmen who were employed prior to the enforcement of that rule. The cases do not, however, help the appellants, as this court, while laying down the principle that a new rule will not ordinarily apply to previously employed workmen, accepted the principle that the new rule can become applicable if the employees accept the new rule as applicable to themselves or acquiesce in it. In the case before us, as we have indicated earlier, the agreement dated 14 January, 1955 shows that the workmen acquiesced in the applicability of the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., to themselves, and, consequently, the retirement of the eleven workmen under rule 11(c) of those rules was perfectly valid.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]The view taken by the tribunal was that demand (5) in the charter of demands had been dropped by the workmen under Cl. (5) of the agreement and, consequently, this plea was no longer open to the workmen. On proper interpretation of the charter of demands and the terms of the agreement, we are of the view that the tribunal was correct in giving this decisionNormally, the contention raised on behalf of the employees that service conditions include all service rules would be correct, but, in this case, it it clear that the workmen had themselves made a distinction between service conditions, facilities, privileges and pension scheme mentioned in demands (1), (2) and (3) and the service rules mentioned in demand (5). The service rules mentioned in demand (5) were clearly indicated as not being covered by the service conditions facilities and privileges mentioned in demands (1) to (3). In the agreement, under Cl. (3), it was laid down that the existing service conditions and facilities were to be continued, excepting pension. In that clause, there was no mention of service rules or standing orders. It is clear that Cl. (3) of the agreement related to demands (1) to (3), and that is why in this clause the expression used was "service conditions and facilities" and there was no mention of either service rules or standing orders. A distinction having been made between service conditions and facilities mentioned in demands (1) to (3), and the service rules and standing orders mentioned in demand (5), it has to be held that Cl. (3) of the agreement only laid down the continuance of those service conditions and facilities which fell within the scope of demands (1), (2) and (3), and did not include service rules and standing orders which were separately ther of demand (5). Under Cl. (5) of the agreement, all order demands, which were not specifically mentioned in the earlier four clauses, were dropped by the union. Demand (5) was thus one of the demands dropped, which necessarily means that the employees gave up their demand that they should not be governed by the service rules or Karamchand Thapar & Bros. Their dropping of this demand clearly meant that they agreed to be governed by those service rules, and, in these circumstances, the tribunal was perfectly right in holding that while this agreement was still in force, the workmen were not entitled to raise an industrial dispute challenging the applicability of the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros, to themWe do not think that in this case the tribunal was called upon to go any further into this aspect. As we have held earlier, the terms of the agreement show that the workmen then employed in the collieries agreed to be governed by the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd. These rules included the rule relating to superannuation at the age of 55 years. The workmen having themselves acquiesced into applicability of these rules under this agreement, there was no bar to applying that rule even to those workmen who were earlier in service and were taken over by Karamchand Thapar & Bros. when they acquired the collieriesThe cases do not, however, help the appellants, as this court, while laying down the principle that a new rule will not ordinarily apply to previously employed workmen, accepted the principle that the new rule can become applicable if the employees accept the new rule as applicable to themselves or acquiesce in it. In the case before us, as we have indicated earlier, the agreement dated 14 January, 1955 shows that the workmen acquiesced in the applicability of the service rules of Karamchand Thapar & Bros., Ltd., to themselves, and, consequently, the retirement of the eleven workmen under rule 11(c) of those rules was perfectly valid.