- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100356 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHEMICAL DIVISION, KARVARA P.O., BINAGA-581307, UTTARA KANNADA JILLE …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DR. ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY ADITYA BIRLA EMPLOYEES’ UNION M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., CHEMICAL DIVISION, BINGA P.O., KARWAR 581 307. UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION, MAJAGAVI ROAD, ITI COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-11. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 3. THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS ACT), 1946 DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.115417 OF 2019 (L-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, B.M.SHYAM PRASAD, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This intra-court appeal by M/s. Grasim Industries Limited [the appellant] is as against the writ Court’s order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P. No.115417/2019. The first respondent [the Union] has filed this in W.P. No.115417/2019 calling in question the second respondent’s order dated 14.08.2018 in the proceedings No.4/2017 [Annexure–H] and the third respondent’s order dated 30.10.2019 [Annexure–K]. The second respondent’s order dated 14.08.2018 is under Section 5[3] of the Industrial Employment [Standing Orders] Act, 1946 [for short, ‘the I.E. Act’], and the third respondent’s order is in appeal under Section 6 of the I.E. Act confirming the second respondent’s order. 2. The second and third respondents’ impugned orders relate to the age of retirement of the workmen with the appellant at its Chemical Division in Karwar. The second respondent has modified the appellant’s Certified Standing Orders enhancing the age of the workmen to 60 years from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 58 years, and the third respondent has confirmed the same. The appellant has unsuccessfully challenged these respondents’ orders in the subject petition in W.P. No.115417/2017. The writ Court has dismissed this writ petition essentially on the following two grounds: [a] The retirement age in one of the appellant’s unit [its Polyfibers and Grasilene Division at Haveri] is 60 years, and if the retirement age in the appellant’s Chemical Division [the Subject Division] is 58 years, there would be disparity resulting in unrest, and therefore, there must be equality in the retirement age amongst the workmen in the two units. [b] The second and the third respondents have analyzed the facts and applied the relevant Rules / Standing Orders in appreciating the claim for retirement age of 60 years. The writ Court has also referred to decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Grasim Industries Private - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 Limited, General Secretary, Harihar Polyfibers Union in W.A. No.100250/20211. The Division Bench has held that the retirement age must be 60 years. 3. This Court must now recount the factual circumstances leading to the present intra-court appeal. The appellant’s Standing Order2 is certified w.e.f. 19.04.1976 under Section 3 of the I.E. Act. A copy of this Certified Standing Order [CSO] is produced as Annexure–A. The CSO provides for 55 years as a retirement age. The Union has raised a demand for increase in the retirement age from 55 years to 58 years, and this demand is discussed and made part of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.11.1985. This settlement has prevailed until a demand is raised by the Union in the year 2013 seeking enhancement in the retirement age to 62 years. This demand [identified as demand No. VIII in the relevant Charter of Demand] is 1 This writ appeal is decided on 05.07.2022 2 The Chemical Division was known as Ballarpur Industries Limited, but the second respondent, in the impugned order dated 14.08.2018, has permitted the change in name in the CSO while enhancing the retirement age to 60 years. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 discussed but not agreed upon.3 The Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.07.2015 [hereafter referred to as ‘the Settlement – 2015], apart from recording this failure of consensus, also contains certain terms that are mentioned under heading General. The terms under this head that are germane for the present controversy is thus. This Memorandum of settlement comes into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and will remain in force till 31.03.2018 and shall continue to be in operation and binding on both the parties even after this date till such time, the terms and conditions herein are modified or substituted by another settlement. This Memorandum of Settlement shall be treated as a Package Deal and is in full and final settlement of all the demands / issues raised by the Union in their Charter of Demands dated 02.01.2015. Any demand / issue raised by the Union/ workmen and it is agreed that the Union and the Workmen will not raised any demands involving financial implications on the Management during the currency of the settlement. All the existing practices, privileges and other terms and conditions of service 3 However, as part of the discussion on the demand for retirement, the appellant has agreed that the workmen will retire on the last date of the corresponding month. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 except to the extent modified in this settlement will continue to be operative and effective. 4. The Union has filed another Charter of Demand on 05.02.2018. On the age of retirement, the Union has once again demanded for increase of the age of retirement from 58 to 62 years. This demand, along with other demands, is discussed and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.03.2019 [hereafter referred as ‘the Settlement – 2019’] is drawn. The Settlement – 2019 is agreed to be in force between 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2021. As regards the demand for increase in the retirement age, the settlement is recorded thus: ‘as the matter is legal both the parties agreed to bind with the higher Courts judgments.’ The Settlement – 2019 further records that any demand raised by the Union but not specifically settled or is dropped and pressed, the Union and the workmen will not raise any demand if those demands involve financial implications on the management. 5. In the meantime, the State Government has issued notification dated 27.03.2017 [Annexure – D] - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 amending Schedule I of the Karnataka Industrial Employment [Standing Orders] Rules, 1961 [for short, ‘the I.E. Rules 1961’]. The entry in Sl. No.15A of the Schedule of these Rules relates to the age of retirement, and this entry is amended by the aforesaid notification to stipulate that a workman may retire at the age of 60 years. The Union, relying on this notification, has submitted an application with the second respondent on 18.04.2017 for directions to the appellant to implement the amendment and increase the age of retirement for workmen from 58 to 60 years. 6. The second respondent, upon receipt of such application, has extended an opportunity to the appellant to file objections. The second respondent by the impugned order dated 14.08.2018 has amended the CSO to read that every workmen with the appellant in this Division shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. This Court must observe that the second respondent, referring to Section 3[2] of the I.E. Act, has opined that a Standing Order such as the CSO must be, so far as it is practicable, in conformity with the Model Standing Order [as contained in Schedule I of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 I.E. 1961 Rules4] and the CSO must also be according to such amendment. The third respondent has dismissed the appellant’s appeal as against the second respondent’s order by the next impugned order dated 30.1.2019 accepting the reasons assigned. The details of the rival submissions. 7. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, argues for interference with the writ Court’s order on the following grounds. 7.1 The writ Court has affirmed the second and third respondents’ impugned orders on the ground that the retirement age in the appellant’s unit in Haveri Division is 60 years and that there must be parity amongst the workmen across the Units to ensure equality in service condition, but the writ Court has not considered that though the application by Workmen’s Union for this Division is alled by the Certifying Officer, the Appellate Authority, in the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 6 of the I.E. 4 The amendment to Entry in Sl No. 15A vide the notification dated 27.03.2017. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 Act, vide the order dated 21.04.2021 has interfered with the Certifying Officer’s order. The Workmen’s Union has called this order in question in W.P. No.102555/2021 which is still pending consideration. When the question of retirement age in the Haveri Division is thus pending, there will be no justification to apply the principle of parity. 7.2 The writ Court has relied upon the decision in W.A. No.100250/2021, but both the appellant and the concerned Union have filed the review petitions in R.P. No.100126/2022 and R.P. No.100057/2023. These review petitions are pending consideration. In any event another Co-ordinate Bench in the Management of Hindalco Industries Limited v. General Secretary, Employees’ Union in W.A. No.100325/2022 has distinguished the decision in W.A. No.100250/2021 observing that the decision in the earlier application is without considering the decision of the Apex Court in Barauni Refinery - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation and others5. 7.3 The Apex Court in Barauni’s case supra has declared that during the operation of a settlement, it is not open for the workmen to demand a change in service condition contrary to the settlement. This principle must apply in the present case, and the decision in the writ appeal in W.A. No.100250/2021 must be distinguished, because the appellant, both under the Settlement - 2015 and Settlement - 2019, did not agree for increase in the retirement age from 58 years. The agreement specifically on both the occasions is that that any demand or issue which is not specifically settled shall be treated as dropped with the workmen not being entitled to raise a demand in that regard during the tenure of the settlement when there is financial implication. The Union cannot go beyond this agreement. 7.4 The second and third respondents could not have relied upon Sections 3[2] of the I.E. Act alone, and they 5 [1991] 1 SCC 4 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 should have read such provision in conjunction with the entry in Sl. No.15A of Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961. This entry stipulates that the Standing Orders may be in conformity with the Model Standing Orders so far as is practicable and subject to the further condition that the age of retirement of a workmen may be 60 years or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workmen by any agreement which is binding on them under any law for the time being in force. The agreement under the Settlement – 2019 is a binding settlement, and during the currency of this agreement, no application could have been filed with the second respondent. 8. Sri. V.M. Sheelvant, the learned counsel for the Union, rebuts the appellant’s case as presented by Dr. Aditya Sondhi urging the following. 8.1 The appellant and the Union indisputably have entered into another settlement for the period upto 31.03.2021. The Union once again raised a demand for increase in the retirement age. This demand was discussed - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 and made part of the Settlement -2019. The appellant and the Union have specifically agreed that they shall be bound by the decision of the higher Courts. This agreement is in the backdrop of the indisputable fact that the Union’s claim for increase in the retirement age from 58 to 60 years is in view of the notification dated 27.03.2017, the second respondent had decided in favour of the workmen, and the appellant’s grievance with such decision was pending consideration with the third respondent as of that date. The third respondent’s decision affirming the second respondent’s order on amendment of the CSO increase in the retirement age to 60 years is on 30.10.2019. 8.2 The agreement under the Settlement - 2019 therefore is not to drop the demand or not to raise the demand for any particular period but it is to abide by the decision of the third respondent, who has now confirmed the second respondent’s decision to amend the CSO increasing the retirement to 60 years. The writ Court has also confirmed the same. Therefore, even if the decision of the Apex Court in Barauni’s case is made applicable, because - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 the agreement is to be bound by the third respondent’s order dated 30.10.2019 the age of retirement as 60 years would be in consonance with the agreement as contained in the Settlement - 2019. 8.3 The Apex Court in the recent decision in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/s. Jet Airways Limited in Civil Appeal No.4404/2023, which is decided on 25.07.2023, has held that, “any condition of service, if inconsistent with the certified Standing Orders, would not prevail, as the certified Standing Orders would have precedence over all such agreements. Any settlement, the employee Union enters into with the employer would not over ride the Model Standing Order, unless it is more beneficial to the employees.” The decision that Model Standing Order must over-ride any settlement must prevail because the Model Standing Order [as contained in Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961] is amended by the notification dated 27.03.2017 enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 8.4 If this Court opines that the Union could not have applied during the subsistence of the Settlement – 2015 i.e., on 18.04.2017, this Court may permit the retirement age for the workmen with the appellant in the Chemical Division with effect from the date of the Settlement - 2019 viz., 11.03.2019 as both the appellant and the Union have agreed on this date to be bound by the decision in the pending proceedings. If despite the changes in the Model Standing Order [as per Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961’] as is brought about by the notification dated 24.03.2017, a management, such as the appellant, is permitted to deny the benefit of increase in the retirement age citing lack of agreement, this beneficial change can never be implemented. 9. In reply Dr. Aditya Sondhi emphasizes the following. 9.1 This Court must distinguish the facts of the present case from the case in hand before the Apex Court in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh supra, because the Workmen’s Union therein was contending that its members were being held to an agreement contrary to the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 Certified Standing Order to deny the benefit of permanency in employment and in this case, the appellant [the management] is only insisting on adherence to the CSO wherein the Union has agreed to drop the demand and not to raise any demand which has financial implication for a certain period. The Union has applied much before the expiry of the period. 9.2 The Union cannot draw support from the Settlement – 2019 because it has, as in the case of Settlement - 2015, specifically agreed that it will not raise any demand which has financial implication for the period up to 31.03.2021. The agreement in the Settlement – 2019 that the Management will be bound by the decisions of the higher Courts must necessarily be considered in the light of the pending proceedings before the writ Court challenging the second and the third respondent’s order and this assurance. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 The reasoning: 10. The Apex Court in Barauni’s case supra has held that it will not be open to the workmen to demand a change in condition of service contrary to the settlement, but the Union relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh supra, wherein it is exposited that the Model Standing Order must prevail over the settlement unless it is shown that the settlement is more beneficial to the workmen. However, this Court must observe that in Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh the exposition in Barauni’s case did not come up for consideration and the efficacy of such exposition is not disturbed. 11. The Apex Court in Barauni’s case, while considering whether the settlement through conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ‘I.D. Act’] put a bar on the rights of the workmen to approach the authorities under the I.E. Act for fixation of the age of superannuation, has held that a settlement through conciliation [as contemplated under Section 18 of the ID Act] - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 will be distinct from a regular contract and will be binding on even those who are in a minority union and who join service later. 11.1 The Apex Court’s decision in Barauni’s case in this regard reads as under: It may be seen on a plain reading of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 that settlements are divided into two categories, namely, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (ii) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has extended application since it is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognized majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The object obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlements reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. There is an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and can, therefore, safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the Union signing the settlement but also on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority. The Apex Court in a subsequent decision in National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan, which is by a larger Bench of three Judges, has referred to the decision in Barauni’s case endorsing the proposition that a settlement through conciliation is put on par with an award by an adjudicating authority. As such, the unassailable position in law will be that when the settlement through conciliation is subsisting, the workmen cannot be - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 permitted to demand a change contrary to the terms of the settlement. 11.2 This Court, in view of these two decisions and the position that emerges from them, must opine that the crucial question that should have been considered by the writ Court was whether the second and the third respondents had examined the specifics of the agreement between the appellant and the Union through conciliation on the increase in the retirement age. This Court must also opine that the writ Court could have upheld the second and third respondents’ decisions only if it could have opined that there was no settlement through reconciliation on the increase in the retirement age. 11.3 The writ Court has referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.A. No.100250/2021 the appellant’s own case but insofar as a Polyfibers Unit in Harihar. This Court must observe, as is emphasized by Dr. Aditya Sondhi relying upon another decision by another co- ordinate Bench in Hindalco Industries Limited supra, the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 decision in this writ appeal in W.A. No.100250/2021 must be distinguished because the decisions of the Apex Court in Barauni’s case and National Engineering Industries Limited supra are not considered. 11.4 Further, the writ Court could not have applied the principle of parity referring to the retirement age in the appellant’s yet another Unit as it remains undisputed that though the certifying Officer permitted amendment of the appropriate Standing Order to increase the retirement age, the Appellate Authority has interfered with such order on 21.04.2021, and a writ petition as against this decision is pending in W.P. No.102555/2021. Crucially, though the writ Court has referred to the settlement between the appellant and the Union, its decision is not predicated on the terms of the settlement. 11.5 In the light of the afore, the outcome in the present writ appeal must turn on the question: whether the appellant and the Union have agreed by a settlement through conciliation on increasing the retirement age of the workmen. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 This question is examined in the light of the terms of the CSO as is originally certified in the year 1976 under Section 3 of the I.E. Act and the subsequent settlements through conciliation over the next four-four and a half decades. It is undisputed that the CSO, as originally certified in the year 1976, provided 55 years as the retirement age, and further, in the year 1985 by way of a settlement, the appellant and the Union agreed that the retirement age will be 58 years. This settlement has prevailed until the commencement of the present dispute. 11.6 The Union has filed a Charter of Demand in the year 2015 seeking enhancement in the retirement age from 58 to 62 years. There are conciliation proceedings, and a settlement is arrived at between the appellant and the Union. The settlement – 2015 is drawn on 05.07.2015. It is specifically recorded that the demand for increase in the retirement age is discussed but not agreed. The noting in the Charter of Demand itself [which is hand written] is that the demand for increase in the retirement age to 62 years is dropped. The Union has again raised this demand in - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 submitting its Charter of Demand dated 09.02.2018. It is seen from the terms of Settlement – 2019 that there were several rounds of bilateral discussions with exchange of a number of proposals, but with the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, the settlement is reached on 11.03.2019. The settlement is that both the appellant and the Union will be bound by the decision of the Higher Courts. 11.7 This Court must observe that if the Settlement 2015 had continued without any change, there would be no dispute that the Union had unequivocally dropped the demand for increase in retirement age for the period up to 2018 [until 31.03.2018]. However, the subsequent agreement vide the Settlement - 2019 is to be bound by the decision of the Higher Courts. This change in stand, and therefore the Settlement, must be examined in the backdrop of certain vital circumstances. The following are such circumstances. [A] The State Government had issued notification dated 27.03.2017 amending the Model Standing Orders - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 as contained in Schedule I of the I.E. Rules 1961 increasing the age of retirement for workmen to 60 years. The relevant amendment is to entry in Sl. No.15-A which reads as under: “The age for retirement or superannuation of the workman may be [60 years] or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force.” [B] The Union in view of this change had approached the second respondent, the Certifying Officer under the IE Act, immediately for modification in the CSO. The Union’s application in this regard dated 18.04.2017. The second respondent, after extending an opportunity to the appellant, had concluded that the CSO should be modified bringing it on par with the Model Standing Orders as aforesaid. The appellant had not accepted the second respondent’s decision inasmuch as it had availed statutory remedy against the second respondent under Section 6 of the I.E. Act with the third respondent. 11.8 It follows from these indisputable circumstances that if there was an agreement under the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 Settlement – 2015 with the Union agreeing to drop the demand for increase in the retirement age, the agreement under the Settlement – 2019 is to be bound by the decision of the Higher Courts.The appellant relies upon the further term [as part of the General terms] in the Settlement – 2015 viz., that the Union / workmen have agreed not to raise any demand or issue which is not specifically settled or is dropped / not pressed if there is any financial implication to the appellant during the currency of the settlement. 11.9 This term could have been invoked if it could be opined reasonably that the Union / workmen had either dropped the demand for increase in the retirement age or the demand was not specifically settled, but the agreement under the settlement is to be bound by the decisions of the Higher Courts. This term not to raise a demand that has financial implication will have to be read subject to the agreement that both the appellant and the Union will be bound by the decision of the Higher Court. As such, the application of the proposition in Barauni’s case that it would not be open to the workmen to demand a - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 change in the condition of service contrary to the settlement during the operation of the settlement is rendered tenuous Therefore, the appellant cannot draw any support from the agreement not to raise the demand which has financial implication to the appellant. 11.10 The State Government has issued notification dated 27.03.2017 increasing the retirement age for the workmen by amending the I.E. 1961 Rules. The retirement age is increased to 60 years. When the settlement between the appellant and the Union is to be bound by the decisions of the Higher Courts and not a concluded settlement through conciliation on the particular age for retirement, the provisions of Section 3[2] of the I.E. Act will be crucial. These provisions read as under: “3[2] The Standing Order prepared as required under sub-section [1] shall refer to every matter set out in the schedule which may be applicable to the industrial establishment and where Model Standing Orders have been prescribed shall be so far as is practicable in conformity with such Model Standing Order.” - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 11.11 The stipulation is that certified Standing Orders must be in conformity with the Model Standing Orders subject to practicability. Therefore, it follows that if the appellant is unable to demonstrate why it would be impracticable for its workman to retire at the age of 60 years, the CSO must be in conformity with the Model Standing Orders in terms of I.E. 1961 Rules. This Court must record that no circumstance to justify a conclusion that it would be impracticable to have the workmen retire at the age of 60 years is not brought on record. In which event, the retirement age must be 60 years. Next, this Court must refer to the provisions in SL No. 15A of the I.E.1996 Rules [Model Standing Orders]. This Entry in the Model Standing Order reads as under: “15A. The age for retirement or superannuation of the workman may be [60 years] or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force.” - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3988-DB WA No. 100356 of 2023 11.12 This Rule in the Model Standing Order stipulates that the retirement age may be 60 years or such age as may be agreed between the employer and the workmen. As opined supra there is no agreement between the appellant and Union on the retirement age and the agreement is only to be bound by the decision of the Higher Courts. The workmen cannot be denied the benefit of retiring at the age of 60 years in terms of a beneficial law when there is no agreement on the retirement age and the agreement against raising a demand that has financial implication to the appellant cannot be held against them. Therefore, the question framed in favour of the Union concluding that there is no justification to interfere with the writ Court’s order. As such, this intra-Court appeal is rejected. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP