Case: Jeewanlal (1929) Limited Vs. Workmen &amp; Another

been fixed. 14. Reference was also made to the decisions in Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. The Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd., (C.A. No. 845 of 1966 dated 12th February, 1969); Workmen v. Balmer Lawrie & Co., [1964 - I L.L.J. 380]; (1964) 5 S.C.R. 344, Workmen v. Jessop & Co. Ltd., [1964 - I L.L.J. 451], Associated Power Company Ltd. v. Its Workmen [1964 - I L.L.J. 743], etc., as tending to show that the age of superannuation of industrial workers varied in different regions and the age fixed in any particular case would not necessarily be applicable in another concern. 15. On the other hand, Mr. Dudhia learned counsel for the respondent referred us to the decision in Burmah Shell O. S. & D. Co. v. Their Workmen, [1970 - I L.L.J. 363]. This decision fixing the age of retirement of the workmen at 60 was based on the evidence on record. The Court noted therefrom that in many cases the age of superannuation of workmen had been fixed either by settlement or by awards at 60 years and although the general trend in West Bengal was to fix it at 58 years, so far as Bombay and Delhi areas were concerned, the trend appeared to fix the age of superannuation at 60 years. 16. It must, however, be remembered that the work in this concern (Burmah Shell Co.) could not be described as arduous or hazardous. 17. In M/s. British Paint (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1969) 2 S.C.R. 522, a case from West Bengal cited by Mr. Dudhia, the company being manufacturers of paints, it was said that the work in the factory was not particularly arduous and, therefore, there was no reason for fixing the age of retirement at a level lower than that of clerical and subordinate staff which was 60 years. Counsel relied on the observations at p. 526 reading :"...... generally speaking there is no reason for making a difference in the age of retirement as between clerical and subordinate staff on the one hand and factory workmen on the other, unless such difference can be justified on cogent and valid grounds. It is only where work in the factory is of a particularly arduous nature that there may be reason for fixing a lower age of retirement for factory workmen as compared to clerical and subordinate staff." The Court incidentally noted that the case of Jessop and Company, (supra) cited at the bar was one of a heavy engineering concern where presumably the work of factory workers was more arduous as compared to that of its clerical and subordinate staff. 18. Reference was also made to the case of Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1967 - I L.L.J. 114], where the Tribunal had raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58 years with a discretion to the company to continue the employee beyond that age. In this case the Court held that the age of retirement of the employees of the company should be raised to 60 years and that it was not proper to give a discretion to the company whether to raise the age of retirement or not, inasmuch as the vesting of such uncontrolled discretion in the employer might lead to manipulation and victimisation. The Court relied on the report of the Normus committee which had taken the view that the retirement age of workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60. 19. The above decisions clearly show that the present day tendency is to fix the age of superannuation generally at 60 unless the Tribunal feels that the work of the operatives is particularly arduous or hazardous where workmen may lose efficiency earlier. The photographs which are on record show that in at least some sections of the factory workmen have to work at machines which resemble some in use in heavy engineering industries. On the materials we do not find it possible to come to any definite conclusion on the point. We may also note that whereas in engineering concerns in West Bengal the age of retirement generally fixed for operatives is 58 years, there is a divergence of opinion as regards operatives in Bombay and Delhi. Much will, therefore, depend on the actual assessment of the nature of the work of the operatives to find out whether it is really so arduous or hazardous as to lead the Certifying Officer or the Court in appeal to the conclusion that the proper age of superannuation should not be raised beyond 58 years. It is rather unfortunate that the Industrial Court ignored the prayer of both parties to make a personal inspection of the factory of the appellants to come to his conclusion. Such personal inspection would have been more valuable than oral evidence by the parties before the Certifying Officer. In this case the Certifying Officer went by his own previous impression without caring to inspect the factory and the Industrial Court ignored the joint prayer in that behalf. We, therefore, feel that the matter should be reinvestigated and the Certifying Officer should inspect the conditions in the factory to come to a conclusion whether the age of superannuation should be left at 58 years or whether it should be raised to 60 years. 20. On the question as to whether the note appended to Standing Order 22-A should be incorporated therein, it seems to us that both the parties took a practical view of things in agreeing to the terms of the note. We are not impressed by Mr. Pais argument that matter No. 10-A of the Schedule to the Bombay Act does not give jurisdiction to the Certifying Officer to incorporate any clause as to the determination of the age of a particular workman when there is a dispute about it. We do not, however, wish to express any final opinion on this point but it appears to us that the note jointly prepared would avoid many disputes.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. The above decisions clearly show that the present day tendency is to fix the age of superannuation generally at 60 unless the Tribunal feels that the work of the operatives is particularly arduous or hazardous where workmen may lose efficiency earlier. The photographs which are on record show that in at least some sections of the factory workmen have to work at machines which resemble some in use in heavy engineering industries. On the materials we do not find it possible to come to any definite conclusion on the point. We may also note that whereas in engineering concerns in West Bengal the age of retirement generally fixed for operatives is 58 years, there is a divergence of opinion as regards operatives in Bombay and Delhi. Much will, therefore, depend on the actual assessment of the nature of the work of the operatives to find out whether it is really so arduous or hazardous as to lead the Certifying Officer or the Court in appeal to the conclusion that the proper age of superannuation should not be raised beyond 58 years. It is rather unfortunate that the Industrial Court ignored the prayer of both parties to make a personal inspection of the factory of the appellants to come to his conclusion. Such personal inspection would have been more valuable than oral evidence by the parties before the Certifying Officer. In this case the Certifying Officer went by his own previous impression without caring to inspect the factory and the Industrial Court ignored the joint prayer in that behalf. We, therefore, feel that the matter should be reinvestigated and the Certifying Officer should inspect the conditions in the factory to come to a conclusion whether the age of superannuation should be left at 58 years or whether it should be raised to 60 years20. On the question as towhether the note appended to Standing OrderA should be incorporated, it seems to us that both the parties took a practical view of things in agreeing to the terms of the note. We are not impressed by Mr. Pais argument that matter No.A of the Schedule to the Bombay Act does not give jurisdiction to the Certifying Officer to incorporate any clause as to the determination of the age of a particular workman when there is a dispute about it. We do not, however, wish to express any final opinion on this point but it appears to us that the note jointly prepared would avoid many disputes.