- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.266 OF 2024 (DEC) BETWEEN: M/S. KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED 8/9TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560073 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI C.K. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.N. JAIPRAKASH S/O LATE G.M. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O NO.169, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 1ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 2. B.S. GOPINATH S/O LATE B.S. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O NO.1014, 4TH MAIN, D-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNA S. VYAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 (B.S. GOPINATH) IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2303/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH 12) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendant- company assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 passed in O.S.No.2303/2016 by the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-12) (‘trial Court’ for short), whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed in part, declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to retire at the age of 60 years and setting aside the retirement letters issued to them, while rejecting the claim for damages. Plaint averments: 2. The plaintiffs, who joined the defendant’s company as helpers in the years 1977-1978, initially served under the certified standing orders, wherein the age of retirement was fixed at 58 years in W.P.No.41583/2011, this Court upheld the amendment enhancing the retirement age of workman to 60 years, which was confirmed up to the Apex Court. The plaintiffs, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 having been promoted as associate material scientists in 2013, contended that the said promotion do not alter their retirement age, and that they continued to be governed by the Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946 (‘standing orders’ for short). The defendant, however issued letters dated 01.01.2016, 05.02.2016 and 23.02.2016 retiring them at the age of 58, which the plaintiffs alleged was illegal, arbitrarily, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and contrary to the order in WP.No.41583/2011. They sought a declaration that their retirement was illegal and a direction to treat them as continuing in service till 60 years with consequential benefits and damages for hardship and mental agony. Written statement averments: 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiffs, upon promotion to officer cadre in 2013 ceased to be a workman and were no longer governed by the standing orders. Officers are governed by the Rules - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 applicable to the officers, wherein the age of superannuation is 58 years. The plaintiffs were, however, granted discretionary extension beyond 58 years, having accepted their promotion and extension, the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming benefit of standing orders. The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under the standing orders and in any case, relief of reinstatement or continuation of service cannot be granted in respect of contracts of personal service. 4. The trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence held that the plaintiffs were still governed by the standing orders even after their promotion as officers, and that they were entitled to retire at 60 years. The impugned retirement letters were accordingly set aside as illegal and violative of the decision of WP.No.41583/2011. The trial Court however rejected the claim for damages for mental agony on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish such laws. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed a foundational error in extending the benefit of certified standing orders to the plaintiffs after their promotion as officers. Once promoted, the plaintiffs were governed solely by the officer cadre Rules fixing retirement at 58 years. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the present suit is not in dispute, since the plaintiffs being officers, have no remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, it is urged that such jurisdiction is limited in scope. In a suits relating to personal service, the Civil Court cannot grant the relief of reinstatement, at the best, it may award damages or compensation, if there is a breach of contract or unlawful termination. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 7. The grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by interpreting the certified standing orders and extending their benefit to the plaintiffs, who are admittedly officers. Upon promotion, the standing orders ceased to apply, and their service conditions were exclusively governed by the Rules applicable to the officers. It is further contended that the standing orders is a sister enactment of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. If any question arises as to the application, modification or interpretation of the standing orders, the proper forum would be under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. There is no separate adjudicatory forum under the standing orders and by necessary implication such questions fall under within the competence of Industrial Tribunal, Labor Court and not the Civil Court. 8. Therefore, while the plaintiffs rightly invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court as the officers, the Civil Court had no authority to borrow jurisdiction under the standing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 orders and exchange its benefits to officers. The trial Court, in holding otherwise committed a jurisdictional error warranting interference in this appeal. 9. Though learned counsel placed reliance upon the following decision: i. Prakasan M.P. and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others1 (Prakasan), to contend that the fixation of retirement age is a matter of policy within the executive domain. ii. The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association Vs. The State of Kerala and Others2 (The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association). Wherein it reiterated that employees cannot claim enhancement of retirement age as a matter of right. iii. Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. E. Iacats3 wherein it was declared that no vested 1 2023 SCC Online SC 1074 2 AIR 2018 SC 2652 3 (1997) 7 SCC 334 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 rights exist to continue in service beyond prescribed limit retirement age. iv. State of Bihar and Others Vs. Teachers’ Association of Government Engineering College and Others4 (Teachers’ Association) wherein the Apex Court emphasized that retirement age is a uniform service policy not subject to individual claims. Contention of the respondents: 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that on the date of the order in WP.No.41583/2011, the plaintiffs were still workmen, hence entitled to the benefit of enhanced age of 60 years. It is urged that the promotion orders did not expressly alter the retirement age and that the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation that they would retire at 60 years. It is argued that instances of other officers being allowed to continue till 60 reveal arbitrariness and discrimination in 4 (2000) 10 SCC 527 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 retiring the plaintiffs at 58 years. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is defended on the ground that the plaintiffs being officers have no other forum to approach. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that the plaintiffs are governed by standing orders and they are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years?” 12. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and is of the view that the trial Court erred in applying the certified standing orders to the plaintiffs after their promotion to office cadres. The standing orders under the Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946, apply only to “workmen” not to officers. The plaintiffs, having been promoted on 11.06.2013 as associate material scientists, were governed exclusively by the Rules applicable to the officers under which the age of superannuation is 58 years. The plea of legitimate - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 expectation cannot override statutory rules, as held in Union of India and Others Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation and Others5 (Hindustan Development) and State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd.6 (Kalyanpur Cement Ltd.). Expectation however bona fide cannot confer a right contrary to law. 13. Apex Court in the case of Prakasan M.P. as held at Para No.11 as under. “11. It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and 5 (1993) 3 SCC 499 6 (2010) 3 SCC 274 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. The Apex Court has reiterated that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of a State Government. 15. The Apex Court in the case of The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors’ Association has held at Para No.6 as under: “6. We have cogitated over the rival submissions and after examining the records, we find no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court in rejecting the claim of the appellant to accord parity in respect of age of superannuation at - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 60 years to the Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31st March, 2013. The High Court rightly opined that the method of appointment and conditions of service of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are qualitatively different. Assistant Public Prosecutors are appointed through a competitive selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission as per the rules in vogue. After appointment, Assistant Public Prosecutors are entitled to all service benefits as are enjoyed by the other government employees without any exception. Public Prosecutors, however, are appointed from a panel of advocates furnished by the Advocate General and the term of appointment of Public Prosecutors is for a period of 3 years only. They are not considered as government employees and do not derive any service benefits as in the case of government employees. They can even be terminated by the Government at any time before the expiry of normal term of appointment, without assigning any reason. The Government is also free to re-appoint any person appointed as Public Prosecutor for a further period subject to eligibility. The fact that the nature of duties and functions of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are similar, per se, cannot be the basis to claim parity with Public Prosecutors in respect of age of superannuation.” - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 16. Further under Section 14b of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable. The settled principle, reaffirmed in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. Vs. Manorama Sirsi7 (Pearlite Liners). That a private employment contract cannot be enforced by way of reinstatement or continuation. The only remedy is damages if wrongful termination is established. The trial Court has refused to award damages. However, the trial Court fell in error in extending the Standing Orders to officers and granting relief of continuation till 60 years and has acted contrary to the statutory framework and binding precedent. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the point frame for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. Regular First Appeal is allowed. 7 (2004) 3 SCC 172 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39174 RFA No. 266 of 2024 ii. The judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 in O.S.No.2303/2016 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-12) is hereby set aside. iii. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28