Case: Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Limited Vs. Burmah-Their Workmen and Another

This is the only decision of this Court brought to our notice dealing with the age of superannuation of workmen in the Delhi area. But from the award of the the tribunal, it is seen that in as many as 22 concerns in Delhi area, the age of superannuation of workmen has been fixed either by settlements or by awards at 60 years. In Workmen of Jessop & Co., Ltd. v. Jessop & Co. [1964-I L.L.J. 451], a company situate in West Bengal, this Court fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years. Again in Workmen of Balmer Lawrie & Co., Ltd. v. Balmer Lawrie & Co., Ltd. and another [1964-I L.L.J. 380], a company situated in West Bengal, this Court fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years. That judgment was delivered on 7 November 1963.10. From the various decisions rendered by this Court and by the tribunals, it is obvious that the trend is to raise the age of superannuation. It is also from those decisions that so far as Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi areas are concerned, the trend appears to raise the age of superannuation to 60 years.11. In fixing the age of superannuation, several circumstances have to be taken into consideration, as observed by this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams (Private), Ltd. v. Sterling (P. J.) and others [1959-II L.L.J. 405.]. Speaking for the Court, Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), observed therein (at p. 415) :"..... In fixing the age of superannuation industrial tribunals have to take into account several relevant factors. What is the nature of the work assigned to the employees in the course of their employment ? What is the nature of the wage-structure paid to them ? What are the retirement benefits and other amenities available to them ? What is the character of the climate where the employees work and what is the age of superannuation fixed in comparable industries in the same region ? What is generally the practice prevailing in the industry in the past in the matter of retiring its employees ? These and other relevant facts have to be weighed by the tribunal in every case when it is called upon to fix an age of superannuation in an industrial dispute ...."In the instant case, the tribunal did not find that, as compared with other concerns, the wage structure in the appellant-company is unsatisfactory. Taking into consideration the wage structure in other comparable concerns, the wages paid by the appellant-company must be considered as reasonable. As mentioned earlier, so far as clerical staff is concerned, a pension scheme is in operation in the appellant-concern. The tribunal did not find that that scheme is not a fair one. We have ourselves examined the scheme; compared with the pension scheme prevailing either in the Union Government, or in the State Governments, that scheme must be considered as a fair one. So far as the other workmen are concerned, there is no pension scheme. Those workmen are no doubt paid some gratuity at the time of their retirement; but that payment is wholly inadequate to meet their obligations during their retired life. We are told that they are paid fifteen months salary as gratuity. This cannot be considered as an adequate substitute for pension.12. In Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private), Ltd., Bombay v. Its workmen [1960-II L.L.J. 716], this Court observed (at p. 719) :"... It is generally recognized in industrial adjudication that where an employer adopts a fair and reasonable pension scheme, that would play an important part in fixing the age of retirement at a comparatively earlier stage. If a retired employee can legitimately look forward to the prospect of earning a pension, then the hardship resulting from early compulsory retirement is considerably mitigated; that is why cases where there is a fair and reasonable scheme of pension in vogue would not be comparable or even relevant in dealing with the age of retirement in a concern where there is no such pension scheme ...."It is true that the pension payable is not adequate to meet the obligations of the superannuated workman. The same is the case with the retired Government servants; probably their position is worse. That is one of the hardships of an undeveloped or a developing country.13. Out of the 22 concerns, which the tribunal considered as comparable concerns in the matter of fixing the retirement age, 20 had no pension schemes. The remaining 2 are the banks and the Imperial Chemicals (India) (Private), Ltd, Company. In those concerns the age of superannuation is 60 years. In addition, they have pension schemes. But, it must be noted that a pension scheme was introduced in the Imperial Chemicals (Private), Ltd., by a settlement after the age of superannuation was raised to 60 years by this Court. In the case of banks also the age of superannuation as well as the pension schemes were settled by settlements between the employers and the workmen. From these two stray instances it is not possible to draw the inference that in the Delhi area there is a trend to fix the age of retirement at 60 years even in the case of companies where there fair pension schemes. Social security for the weaker sections of our nation is of utmost importance. But then we cannot forget the limitations under which we are living. While we should not forget our social goals, our purpose may be defeated if we do not approach our problems in a pragmatic way. It is one thing to settle dispute by agreement, which affects only the interests of the parties to the agreement; it is a quite different thing for this Court to lay down a rule which will have a wider application.14. We are of the opinion that the tribunal failed to attach sufficient significance to the fact that in the appellant company there is a fair pension scheme for the clerical staff and that circumstance distinguished their case from of the other workmen.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We have ourselves examined the scheme; compared with the pension scheme prevailing either in the Union Government, or in the State Governments, that scheme must be considered as a fair one. So far as the other workmen are concerned, there is no pension scheme. Those workmen are no doubt paid some gratuity at the time of their retirement; but that payment is wholly inadequate to meet their obligations during their retired life. We are told that they are paid fifteen months salary as gratuity. This cannot be considered as an adequate substitute for pension.Out of the 22 concerns, which the tribunal considered as comparable concerns in the matter of fixing the retirement age, 20 had no pension schemes. The remaining 2 are the banks and the Imperial Chemicals (India) (Private), Ltd, Company. In those concerns the age of superannuation is 60 years. In addition, they have pension schemes. But, it must be noted that a pension scheme was introduced in the Imperial Chemicals (Private), Ltd., by a settlement after the age of superannuation was raised to 60 years by this Court. In the case of banks also the age of superannuation as well as the pension schemes were settled by settlements between the employers and the workmen. From these two stray instances it is not possible to draw the inference that in the Delhi area there is a trend to fix the age of retirement at 60 years even in the case of companies where there fair pension schemes. Social security for the weaker sections of our nation is of utmost importance. But then we cannot forget the limitations under which we are living. While we should not forget our social goals, our purpose may be defeated if we do not approach our problems in a pragmatic way. It is one thing to settle dispute by agreement, which affects only the interests of the parties to the agreement; it is a quite different thing for this Court to lay down a rule which will have a wideris not the case of the appellant that there is any uniform age of superannuation for its workmen throughout India. The agreements referred to earlier relate only to Bombay and Calcutta areas. it does not appear that there are similar agreements between the management and the workmen in other areas. Therefore, the fact that thedia concern has no significance for our present purpose.We are of the opinion that the tribunal failed to attach sufficient significance to the fact that in the appellant company there is a fair pension scheme for the clerical staff and that circumstance distinguished their case from of the other workmen.