A DUNLOP L."miA LINI'IED

'OIEIR WORKMEN

March 10, 1972

1-41

u- , [C. A. V AlDIALlNOAM AND G. K. Mrrna, J1.]

Industrial Dlsput~Retlre!"ent age-flfllwstriaJ Tribunal-Jurisdlai to (iz retlrenunf age-Worlcmi111 II bound by agreent b7 Unlo { h'0 1r" hf is M, l a member. n o w IC

In. 1955 the appelant Company framed and brought into fon:o Staodil!a Orders unde.t wh1ch a sta.l! efD:P!e was to mire at the ap of ss.

C 1be Compaoy tn 1.956, entered mto an a~Veemett with its workmen represented by the union, of wbic; b all the workmen of the company re

members. The ament, among other thing,, fixed the retirement agca.t" 55. Notwithstanding this agreement the Compiny iswed a Circular in 1960 to the effect that the manaa:ement will not ~Uuirc any employeeto retire before attaining the age of 58 years. In 1961, tho Oompany entered into an nt wiltt one of the three uniOilS of the workmen dina the (:Ofldllions of Mpioyment. Tbo aereement provided that D an employee shall' relire at the of 58. Otl the expiry of this a~ mtAt a. fClllh aaeeme11t waseGioeled into. with tho.same unioo In 1966. 0t1 one of~ WOI'kmenauaining.SS.years the Coy passed an order retirina the workman. An iAdu&uilll dispute "'r.U raised and it wu referred to Tribunal for adjlldieatioo.

Tho Tribunal recorded. tho tlndi.oga tlw wb£n the kman joillrJ! the

E lf!n'ice of' the Coolpany in 1944 tbc:re were no SbndiD& Orders, ,__or . ard' th r etirement chat tbou&h the wot .. n•ll reauJauons rea tng e age 0 rtbe Co.., did not sjvt. dl'ej; l to - bound by tho 19S6 agreement ·!kJd . the agrtemaJt; that thedie 11111 of• retirement of. 55. yean as :;:;:; . tolll with a Union of wbich 1961 and. 1966. aa:rcaneota were en be was not bound by the workmaa was not a rru::f!lbtr and. ision of this ():)urt in Guut the a~U"tement: and that in Vt~ o!- the doc S.CIL 348 the workman Keen, William.r Ltd• v, P •. 1: 5_ttrltt !19.~1 1 tho age of 60. yean. 011 F waa entitled &o bQ in eerwoe till hla attanuna 0 tho workman ill~ these fiadini!O' the Tribun&l bcld tho ._ord~ ;::: :nd contin\10 in stSVttC' and dcdara<l thllt bo. was enlltled t& "" re:tDS till he attained the ae (If 60 years. .L. (') the trlbunaf 't was contended ...,.t I 6 bould In the appeal by speclill lellve I d by the agreement of l9S s

bavin.t hekl.that tho workmao was =d to redre at the age of S~~

lv.ye held th&l. the. workman was tbe StandiPI ()nlers .

G as provided tbetein or. at.· any. rJ.Ie. '-$ the ()lCnpanfs order redrln~ in !9S5 and In this vi~ it.shoulth d ~al should have held tbebad7o~ the workman at S8 le2al: (il) e . especiall.Y as be e th of 1961 and 1966. bind.ina M !me~~ and (iii) in aoe=u: the various OlheT bcneflts c:oo directioo to tho companY tribunal had no Jurisdic:tioo. ave a f 60 rut' . the \l(orkman till be attained tho aao 0 "b •• b-~ 10 ~.CQIII!rmed "al Ttl \IOU au ' B HELD • That the Award oC the InduStn and the apPul diJmi~ . f the companY In l{:j

(l) ThoU&h the workman entered the rr::; rb; tho coD'IPIDY In ' he Is bound by the StaJ!dina ~

: /

I I .

: I

. I

. I

I i I!

"742

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.ll.

in as much as he was a workman and employed at the time when the Standing Orders were certified. [748 Hl

Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sri Alladin and others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 808; Guest Keen Williams Private Ltd. v. P. I. Sterling and others, ''[19601 1 S.C.R. 348; Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen &: Co. v. Ketrlewell

Bullen &: Co, Ltd., [i964] 2 L.L.J. 146 and Salent Erode Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Employed Union,. [19661 2 S.C.R. 498, referred to.

The 1956 agreement was a valid agreement and as rightly held by the Tribunal it was bindin~ on the concerned workman. ·

But, the Tribunal's finding that the agreement of 1956 had not been

iven effect to is justified.

From the 1960 circular and other circum- . stances it is clear that the management decided not to retire any employee before attaining the age of 58 years though the age of retirment was 55 years under the Standing Orlers framed in 1955 and under the agreement of 1956. [749 EJ


(ii) The agreements of 1961 and 1966 will bind only such of the staff employees as were members of the Union which was party to the

agreement. Tile concerned workman was not a member of. the Union . wnich was a party to the agreement. 1berefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that he was not bound by the agreements of 1961 and 1966.

And, the mere fact that an employee gets the benefit of higher wages

fixed under the agreement cannot be considered tD operate as a bar to his disputing the right of the manat to retire hilt! at the age _9f 58 years; it is only when the clause relating to the a~ of retirement is sought to be enforced that he can raise a controversy, [7S 1 H1

(iii) The Tribunai is justifted in considering the question of the proper retirement age of the workman. The decisions of this Court prima facie support the view of the Tribunal that the workman was entitled to cootinue till he attained the age of 60 years. [752 E]


This Court had emphasised that industrial adJudication in India beina based on industryi-Cum-region basis, industrial tribunals have jurisdiction to make nece~Sary chanaea in a Uniform Scheme so that it might accord wih the prevailin1 conditions in the repon where the employees were G working, as the changes found necessary by the tribunal were to ensure fair conditions of service. 1752 H]

Further the trend in West Bengal region is to fix the aae of retirement at 60 years for the clerical and subordinate staff. [753 D] ·


CIVIL APPELLATE JUIUSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1490 of 1968 ..

DUNLOP INDIA V. WORKMEN (Valdialingam, J.) 743

Appeal by special Leave from the Award dated the 29th Feb ruary, 1968 of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta in Case No. 334 of 1967.

G. B. Pai and D. N. Gupta, for the appellant.

B D. L. Sen Gupta, Janardan Sharma a.nd S. K. Nandy, for the . respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award dated February 29, 1968 of the Fifth Industrial

Tribmal, West Bengal, in Case No. 334 of 1967, settin~ aside the order dated August 2, 1966 passed by the appellant directing the retirement of the concerned workma, n on his attaining the age of 58 years.

The appellant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business throughout India as manufacturers a)tld dealers of tyres, tubes for motors, trucks and tractors etc~ The workman concerned, Hari Nath Bhattacharjee, was appointed in 1944. At that time there were no rules regarding the age of superannuation. On April 26, 1955, the Company framed and brought into force under s. 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, standing ordersrelating to its staff employees. Under clause 28 of the Standing Orders a staff employee as to retire on the first January next. following -e year

which he attains 55 years of age. But it was also provided that if a staff employee desires to remain in service of the Company after the date when he should have been oormally retired, the Managing Director had the power to extend the employee's service year by year provided the work was found to be satisfactory and the employee was certified by the Chief Medical Officer as of good health. ·

In 19 56 an agreement. was entered into between the appellant and its workmen represented by the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour G Union. Clause 14 of the agreement fixed the age of retirement of a staff employee as the 1st of January next following the year in which he has attained 55 years of age.

Notwithnding this agreement under which the age of retirement. of a staff ployee was 55 years, the appellant issued a Circular on April 20, 1960

to the effect that the management will ; not ask any employee to.

etire before attaining the age of 58 years .. In this CircU:I~~ after B terring to the uniform age of retirent in .\Yes~ Bengal of e:t; t.·

oyees in Government and Commercial Establishments. as .the age

SS years, it is stated that the Industrial Tribunals throUghout the

744 .

SVPREM£ COUI.T llEPOit.TS

{1972] 3 S.C.R.

country have fix.ed the age of retirement varying from 55 years to A ,, 60 year&.

On June 29, 1961, an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the Dunlop R.ubbec Factory Labour Union regarding the terms of engagement a, n.d conditions of employment of staff employees.

The aemen.t deals with various matters. a Clause 14 of this agreement provided that the staff employees shall retire at the end of the month in which they attai~ the age of 58 years. This clause also provides for a staff employee retiring when he is declared unfit on medical groUiDd. Clause 27 provided that the agree~ was to take effect from 1st Jnuary, 1961 and was to remain in force for five years from that date.

In view ot the C expiry ol the above agreement, the appellant and the same Union entered into a fresh agreemen( on December 6, 1966. regarding the terms of engagement and conditions of employment for staff employees. This agreement also deals with various matters. Clause 6; dealing with retirement, provided that the staff employees shall retire at the end of the month in which they attai!l the age of 58 years.

Clause 32 provided that the agreemetn't was to have effect D from 1st January, 1966 and was to remain in force for five years from that date.

On August 2, 1966 the Company informed the concerned workman that as per the Company's Regulations, he was due to retire on February 28, 1967 as he will be attai; tiing the age of 58 years E on February 15, 1967. The workman replied on September 7, 1966 stating that he was not bound to retire on completion ot 58 years as he had entered the service.of the Company long before the Standing Orders fixing the age of retirement at the age of 55 years were framed.

According to the workman, he was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 yeais of age. In this reply p he had also referred to the minutes of the meetings of the Works Committee held on February 29, March 30 and May 4, 1956, wherein fixtig of age of retirement at 55 years was disputed.

He . had also referred to certain other matters in his reply.

The appellant sent a further communication on Novemr 4, 9 1966 reiterating its stand that the workman was to retire as mentioned ian the letter dated August 2, 1966. The appellant further stated thai thO\lgh the age of retirement was fixed as 55 years in tbe Standing Orders dated April 26, 1955, the age was raised to ~8 years in the agreements with the recognised Union and that the.

si4 tc; n:n$ had been accepted by the employees of the appellant K inchi.ctW.a th~. worn concmed. The appellant sent a fur

Co.ro.WcatlQl\. dated. ; f'bnw.y 25~. 1967 .~ the .woran Sting that he was bound by the age of retirementfixed m theagH, ements

DUNLOP INDIA V, WORKMEN (Vaidia/'ingam, J.) 745

A da.tecl Joo.e 2g, 1%1 aDd December 6, 1966. It was further ment.Wnea in this letter that an the employees were umiformly retired from servke. on attailing the age of 5 s: yt1sin: acc0rdance with the sa, id agJieements.

The appellant further stated that the workman had enje~ all the benefits conferred. qn him underthe two

agreemellt3 and 'hence he was bound by the retirement age fixed .B therein.

As cOnciliation proceedings faile~ the GovellJlment of West Bengal referred to the Industrial Tribunal concerned for adjudication the (iJuestion :

"whether the retirement of Shri H. N. Bhattacharyya c is justified: ?

T@ what relief, if any, is he entitled?"

~ appellt relied on the agreements dated June 29, 1961 and December 6, 1966 in support of its stand that the order. regard~

ing the retirement of the workman was justified. In fact the Company raised a plea that 1he concerned workman was bound by the agreeme, nt of 1956 entered into between the appellant and the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union fixing the age of retirement of its employees at 55 years on, the ground that the workman was a member of the said Uniqn. On thiS basis it was

pleaded by the appellant that the concerned workman has really got a higher age of superannuation by virtue of the later two agreements.

The Union qii the other hand pleaded that as there were no Standing Orders regarding the age of retirement when the workman joined service in 1944, he was entitled to connue in service till he attained the age of 60 years in view of the decision of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling and others(!).

The Union further pleaded that the agreement of 1956 had not been given effect to by the appellant as will.be seen from its Circular dated April 20, 1966. The Union also contended that the workman was not. bound by the agreemqnts either of June 29, 1961 or of December 6, 1966 as the Union, which wa's a party to those agreements did not represent all the employees of the apllant including the concei)Ded workman. The Union fet. raised a point that at. the time of the appointment of e wQrkinan~ an assurance had been given by Mr. Edward, Employment Officer ortJie Company, that the. workman can continue in service so long as be was found to be phySically fit

. . . ne~ Tribunal has recorded the following findingS : ·t the f:iine . . :!::!c:e~7~~.j=~:R:!r~;:;:=:~ (I) u960) 1 s.c.l. 348. · . .

.746

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[19721 3 S.C.R.

age of retirement.

The plea of the Union regarding the assurance stated to have n given by Mr. Edward was rejected.

At the time when the agreements of 196t and 1966 were entered 4nto, there were three Unions, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, Dunlop Workmen's Ujn.ion and Dunlop Workers' Association; but the agreements were entered into only with one union, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. The concerned . a workman as well as several other employees were' not the members of this union.

On the other hand, the workman was an active member of the Dunlop Workers' Union, which was not a party to either of the agreemelnts, and therefore, the workman was . not bound by those agreements. In 1966 there was only one Union, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, representing alj the employees of the Company, and therefore the workman was l), ound by the agreement of 1956.

But the Company did not give effect to the age of retiremnt of 55 years as provided in cl. 14 of

the agreement of 1956.

In view of the decision of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others(!), the concerned workman was entitled to be in service till his attaining the age of 60 years.

The Company's plea that as th~ workman had enjoyed the benefits conferred on all employees utnder the agreements of 1961 and 1966, he was also bound by the age of retirement provided therein, was rejected on the ground that the workman c<tn raise a dispute or a controversy about the age of retirement only when the provision regarding the age of superannuation was sought to be enforced.

On these findings the Tribunal held that the order dated August 2, 1966 pa, ssed by the appellant is illegal and it also declared the right of the concerned workman to be reinstated with all benefits 8!tid that he is entiled to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years.

Mr. G. B. Pai, learned counsel for the appellant, raised three contentions : ( 1 ) The Tribunal, having held that the concenned workman. was bound by the agreement of 1956, should have held that the workman was bound to retire at the age of 55 years as provided by cl. 14 therein or at any rate as per clause 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955. In this view, it should have further held that the Company's asking the workman to retire. on completion ol. 58 years was legal; (2) The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the agreements dated June 29, 1961 and December 6, 1966 fixing the age of retiremc:mt at 58 years were not binding on the concerned workman.

On th~ other hand. it should have held that those agreements were binding Qn the . concerned workman especially as he had enjoyed the various other benefits conferred by them; and ( 3) In any event the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to give a direciion to the Company to continue.the

concemed:workman in.service till he attained the age of 6Q .. years. ·

(1) [1960]1 S.C.R. 348.

DUNLOP INDIA v. WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 74.7

Mr. D. L: Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the Union, pointed out that the findings of the Tribunal that the agrement of 1956 was. binding on the concerned workman was itself erroneous.

He referred us to certain materials on record, which, according to him, will establish that protests had been regardijlg the binding nature of the agreement.

In the alternative he contended that the age. of B retirement of 55 years asprovided in cl. 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955 or in cl. 14 of the agreement of 1956, has ;'fever

tn given effect to by the appellant as the circular dated April 20, 1960 will show as also the various dates on which the workmen were retired.

The agreements of 1961 and 1966 were rightly held to be not binding <¥1 the concerned workman, as the concerned c workman was not a member of the union which was a party to those agreements. Mr. Sen Gupta further pointed out that when once the action of the appellnt in retiring the concerned workman on his attaining 58 years was being challenged, the Tribunal had to consider till what date the, workman was entitled to continue in service.

Unless a finding is recorded by the Tribunal on the latter D aspect, it will not be possible to consider otherwise the validity of the order that was being challenged.

Therefore,. he pointed out that the Tribunal was justified n holding that the workman was entitled to continue in service till 60 years and it is on that basis that it held that the termination of the services of the workman on ·.his attaining 58 years was illegal.

E We have already referred to the fact that the Tritjqnal hs disbelieved the case set up by the workman regarding the assurance stated to have been given at the time of his appointment by the Employment Officer, Mr. Edward.

At the time when the wC?rkman entered the service of the appellant in 1944, admittedly there were no rules regulatiMs or agreements regarding the age of F superannuation. In the absence of any such rules, regulations or agreements regarding the age of superannuation, it was the case of the workman, that he was .entitled to continue in service so long as he was physically and mentally fit.

The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court in Guest, Keen Williams, Private Lta.

v. P. J. Sterling and others(l) and Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co., Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd.(2) has held that the G Standing Orders which are rules fixing the age of retirement, framed by a Company, would have no application to its prior employees unless it is shown that such employees accepted the new rules as part of their conditions of service.

These decisions have further laid down that in the absence of any such indication that the enrployees have accepted the new rules as part of their condi- H .-tions of serVice, thy are entitled to be in sece till they attain th~ age_ . of 60 years.

In . support of h~ 1st conten-·

(I) [1960]1 S.C.R. 348.

(2) [1964)2 L.LJ. 146.

748 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS


tion Mr. Pai pointed out that the above two decisions relied A on by the Tribunal have been explained by this Court in a recent decision in Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sri Alladin and others(l).

Oil. the basis of the said decision, he contended that the Standing Orders framed in 1955 providing •n cl, 28 the . age of retirement of an employee as 55 years, is binding on the appellant, though the Standing Orders were framd long after he 8 had tmtered service.

The counsel further re-enforCed this argu- .ment relying on the agreement of 19S6 and the finding of the Tribunal that the said agreement was binding on the concelJled workman.

Mt. Pai urged that the agreement of 1956, which is .binding on the concerned workm~, clearly establishes that the employees represented by the Union including the concerned work- C . man have accepted the uule regarding the age of retirement as part

of. their conditions of service. In short, according to Mr. Pai when the concerned workman is entitled to continue in service only till the age of 55 years, he has really been given a benefit by being allowed to continue till he attained the a~ of SS years.

Nonnally the ab\Ove contention of _Mr. Pai will have considern ; able force.

The decision _in Guest, Keen, Williams Privaie Ltd. v.P. I. Sterling and others(2) as to why the age of retiiemeni of 60 years was fixed to employees who have been in s-emce be'oie the Standing Orders :fixitig the age of retirement were tranied, has :been explained in Salem Erode Electricity Diibutibn Company .Ltd. v. Salem Erode Electricity l)istribution Co. Ltd, Emp(pyees' -Union(a). In fact, both the decisionS in Giitst, Keen, Wiiliams, E Private Lttf. v. 'P: /. Sferli11g arad pthers(~) and' Workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Kttlewell BaUtli & Co~ Ltd.(") have

been explained in Agra El~Ctri'cit)'J Supply Co. Lid. v. St'f .4)/itdin -and others('). In the latest' deciSion, after a review of the provi~

sions of the Indfrial Empl9yment' ( Sdipg Otdel'S) Act, 1946, it has been held that' when: the standlng <!JrdtJ:s art' certified and F , oome into operation, they become binding on the employer and all the workmen presently employed as also those emoyed thereafter in the establishment conducted by that employer~ It liasbeen'turther -htsld that. it canno~ possibly be that such Standing Ottiel'S would bindonly those who are. employed after they coin~· into force and not. those who ate employed previously, btit are still in employment ,. when they come into force. .u ApPlying the: principles laid down.in A.g¥a .Elecf.ridiy SupplJ Co . . Ltd; v. Sri Alladin andothers-(1)., it is clear that though .. tqe oonC4fltlCdworkmaii, in tho case befpre u&, eritered-rt, iiee _ot the

at-in. 1944; be will be-bollBd-by .the:Stiuidiiig.Orders framed by. t}w::appd}am-11·1955 after following.-the provisio~ of e rete- . 11 vaM' statute io:asnmcb-as--ho was &:workmeri pte8<$tly employed

t tho time when-~ Standing Orders were certifiec1

<t> [l970J 1 s.c.R. aos. <2> [1960] 1 s.c.a. 348.

(3) 11~1 2 S.C.R. 498.

(4) [19641 2 L.L.J. 146.

DUNLOP INDIA v. WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 749

Though Mr. Sen Gupta haS been able to draw our attention tO certain protests made by the workm~ regarding the agreement of 1956, .in our opinion,· the finding of the Tribunal that the concerned workman was bpund by the said agreement has to be accepted~

There is no cQntroversy that in 1956 there was only one union,. namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. There is further no controversy that the said union repr-..sented all the employeeS of the Company. The agreement was entered •nto by the appellant with the said Union. If so, it follows_ that was a valid agreement and as rightly held by the Tribunal it was binding on the

conce11Iled workman.

Clause 14 of the said agreement clearly specifies that a staff enrployee shou4J retire on the 1st of January, next following the year in which he has/attained 55 years of age.

By this agreement it must be held that the employees have accepted the retiring age already provided in the Standing Ordrs framed in 1955 as part of their ronditions of service. It the 1956 agreement holds the field, there is no scape from the conclusion that the concerned workman was entitled to be in service only till he attained the age of 55 years, and Mr. Pai is well founded .in his ctention that the retirement of the workman long after he attained the age of 55 years is justified.

It must be noted that the Tribunal has found that the ament of 1956 has not been givtm effect to by the appellant. niis finding is attacked by Mr. Pai. Even here, in our opinion, the finding-of

the Tribrunal is justified. That the retirement age provided under

cl. 14 of the agreement of 1956 was not acted UPQn by the appellant Company is clear from the allowing circumstances : The appellant issued a circular on April 20, 1960 to the effect .that the management will not ask any employee to retire before atta.inmg the age of 58 years. In the said circul~ it is stated that the question of fixing the retiring age of employees, both in public and private sectors, has received considerable attentiQQ .and publicity and that in West Bengal thOugh the retiring age is almost unifO!lnly ' 55 years, in Government service, the Industrial Tribunals throgh out the country have awarded ages of retirement varying from . ss

to 60. From this circular it is clear that the management have decided not to retire any employee before attaining the age of 58 G years, .though the age of retirement was 55 years as per clause. 28 of the Standing Orders framed in 1955 and clause 14 of the agreement of 1956.

 It is also pertinent to note that in Bomooyarea,:disputes:were raised by the employees of the appellant regardmg !f1e_ age of B retirement for clerical and guboi'dmate .staff to ]:)e ratSed .m.. ~5 to 60 years. The Industrial. T{ibunaL raised th~ age of rewent ·

to 60 years; ?The appellant. had-challen~ .· .d~i9rl--~ me Industrial Tribunal oofore this Court. This CQ~~ ltl. lts 'd~ISlO~

2-L106 SupCI/72 '

SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1972] 3 s.c.R.

in The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen andothers(l),

rendered on October 16, 1959, upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Company's appeal. Following this judgment the appellant had issued the circular, referred to above, on April 20,

1960. The appellant entered into an agreement with the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union Qn June 29, 1961 fixing the age of retirement at 58 years.

The same has been reiterated in the second agreement between the same parties on December 6, 1966. ..,

Even on December 6, 1962 there is an inter office letter issued by the appellam.t stating that those staff employees who are over 52 or will attain the age of 52 on 1st January, 1963, will continue

to work until the age of 60 years and all others will retire at 58. c Admittedly, as on January 1, 1963, the concerned workman was over 52 years and as such bly , virtue of this letter he was titled to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

All these circum~ stances clearly indicate that the appellant has departed from the original age of retirement fixed at 55 by the 1956 agreement.

The 'appellant had very strongly relied on Ex. I, as co, ntaining D the list of employees (Staff, Operatives & Special Appointments) superannuated from 1956 to August 1, 1967. According to the appellant the particulars furnished in this list will establish that the age of retirement of 55 years fixed by the 1956 agreement has bn given effect to and the staff has been retired on their attaining the age of 55 years as per clause 14.

We have already referred to the fact that cl. 14 of the 1956 agreement provides that staff employees are to retire on the 1st of January, next following the year n which they have attained 55 years of age.

We have gne through the particulars .mentioned therein. A perusal of the details mentioned in columns 5 and 6 relating to date of birth a!Od date of retirement relating to the years 1956 to 1959 clearly shows that except a few officers, all the others have retired long after having completed 55 years of service.

To take an instance: serial No. 8, Gopi Nath Seal, who was born on April 8, 1894 retired on Al}ril 1, 1956, i.e., at about the age of 62 years.

Similarly, serial No. 1'2, Dasurathi Bose, who was born on May 22, 1.891 retired only on April1, 1956, i.e., wh~ he was about 65 years. We do not want to multiply instances because there are persons who have retired at the. age of 59 and long after attainingthe age of 58. the list furnished by the appella.nt itself to establish that the 1956 agreement was given effect to re2arding the age of superannuation does not support the appellant.

Mr. Pai pointed out that the asPeCt referred to. by us in Ex. I has not bleen put to the Comoany's witness in which case an exPla~ nation would have been offered.

When the facts and particulars


DUNLOP INDIA V, WORKMEN (Vaidialingam, J.) 751 .

A in Ex. I are quite clear and when the appellant itself relied on 1 that document to establish that the members of the staff were It superannuated at the age of 55 years, it was its duty to offer satis- ·.: factory expla111ation, ii one such was avaitable, to show why very many officers mentioned therein were continued in service loner after attainingthe age of 55 years. o

From what is stated above, the contettion of Mr. Pai that the Tribooal's finding that the agreement of 1956 has not been acted upon, is erroneous, cannot be accepted. H so, it follows that the first contention of Mr. Pai will have to be re.iected.

Coming to the second contention of Mr. Pai, the agreement of 1966, it cMl be safely left out ot acco\mt as it came into effect only

m December 6, 1966 long after the notice dated August 2, 1966 • tssued by the appellant to the concerned workman. Coming to the agreement of June 29, 1961 that was one entered into between the appellant and the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union. At the time when this agreement was entered into, there is no controversy, D that there were three labour unions, namely, Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Qnion, Lunlop Workers' Union and Dunlop Workers Association. It is not disputed by the appellant that the concerned workman was a member of the Dunlop Workers' Union, which was not a party to any such agreement with the appellant. If the age of retirement at 58 had been fixed in the Standing Orders of the E Comany after following the procedure ndicated in the relevant statute, as the appellant originally did in 1955, then the position may be different.

On the other hand, what the appellant did was to enter into llin agreement with the Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union, which represented only one section of the staff employees. When that is so, such an agreement will bind only such of the staff employees who were members of the Dunlop Rubber Factory . 11' Labour Union, which was a party to the agreement. The concerned workman who was not a member of the said union was justified in contending that he was lll.Ot bound by the agreements of 1961 and 1966 and the Tribuna] was also justified in upholding that contention.

Mr. Pai then urged at the agreeme-nts of 1961 and 1966 conferred very many benefits on the employees and those benefits have als been availed of by the concerned workman. Therefore, he urged that the workman was bound by the provisions contained in those agreements relating to the age of retirement. The mere fact that an employee gets the benefit of higher wages fixed under the agreement, in our opinion, caltlllot be considered to operate as a bar to his disputing the right of the management to retire him at the age of 58 years.

It is only when the clause relating to the ae of retirement is sought to be enforced that he can raise a contro-.


versy.

The other provisions regarding gratuity and other retirement benefits will accrue to the workman only on his retirement and therefore it cannot be said that the concerned workman had taken the benefit of those provisions before he was due to retire.

Therefore, we are not impressed with this contention of Mr. Pai.

The second contention is also to be rejected. .

The last contention of Mr. Pai need not detain us very long.

When the order of the management directing the workman to retire! on his attaining the age of 58 years was being challenged as illegaJ,

the Tribunal had necessarily to consider what is the p, roper retirement age for the concemed workman.

It is onl:Y when a finding is given that the concerned workman i~ entitled to continue bejrond 58 years that the Tribunal can hold the order of the Company directing his retirement at 58 years as illegal.

So the Tribunal was justified in going into that aspect.

The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of this Court in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling and others(!) and W e?rkmen of Kettlewell- Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (2) for holding that the concerned workman who had joined service at a time when there were no rules, regulations, agreements or Standing Orders regar~ ing the age of superannuation, was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. J'h()Se decisions prima facie

upport the view of the Tribunal that the concerned workman, in the present case, is entitled to cntinue in service till he attained

the age of 60 years.

We have already referred to the fact that the & said decisions have n explained by this Court in Agra Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Sri Alladin and others(!).

However, the finding of the Tribunal that the concertDed workman was entitledto continue in service till.he attained the age of . 60 years can be supported on other grounds. We already referred to the decision of this Court in The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen and others(4 ) relating to the age of retirement

being .60' years in respect of the appellant's staff employed in Bombay region.

Though that decision related to the empl()yees of the appellant in Bombay region; it should be mted that this Court rejected the contention of the Company that it being an all

 India concern it should have uniform conditions of service thr.ough~ out the couJltry for its employees. It was further emphasised_by this Court that industrial adjudication in India being :bqed on industry-cum-region basis, the Industrial Tribunals hive jc tion to make necessary changes in a unifoni:t scheme so that it migb~ accord. witp. e prevailing c<>n, ditions in the region where ·· the employees were working. as the cha111.gea found necessary bjy. the Tribunal .were to ensure fair conditio:QS of se~. .

 . Q

(1) [1960] I S.C.R. 348.

(2) [1964] 2 L.I..1. 146.

(3) [19?0J 1 S.C.R. 808.

(4) [1%0] 2 S.C•R. 51.

DUNLOP INDIA V. WORKMEN (Valdialingam, J.) 753

We have also referred to the inter office letter dated December 6, 1962 which further shows that even according to the appellant the concerned workman is entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

Mr. Pai has referred us to certain decisions to show that the trend in West Bengal is to fix the age of retirement as 58 years for clerical and subordinate staff.

Mr. Sen Gupta also referred us to certain decision$ in other regions to show that the trend is t~ fix the age of rtirement for staff members at 60 years.

But it is not necessary for us to refer to those decisions cited either by Mr. Pai or by Mr. Sen Gupta.

We will only refer to the decision of this Court in M/s British Paints (India) Ltd. v. IJs Workmen( 1), which relates to West Bengal region wherein this Court fixed the age of retirement both for factory workmen and the staff members in the Company concerned at 60 years. No doubt, it is pointed out in the said decision that lhe uniform age was fixed for the. factory workmen also j, nl that case because of the particular nature I

of work the factory workmen had to do, but one thing is clear, the trend in West Bengal region is to fix the age of retirement at 60 ' years for the clerical and subordinate staff. From this point of view the direction of the Tribunal that the appellant was entit1ed to continue in service till 60 years is justified.

The result is that the Award ot the Industrial Trib:unal is confirmed and this appeal dismissed with costs.·

K.B.N.

Appeal. dismissed.