# DUNLOP L."miA LINI'IED v. 'OIEIR WORKMEN - **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 741 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1972-03-10 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dunlop-l-mia-lini-ied-v-oieir-workmen-5610 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote A DUNLOP L."miA LINI'IED v. '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 agree~nt b7 Unlo { h'0 1r" · hf is M,l a member. · n o w IC In. 1955 the appe~lant 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~Veemet~t with its workmen represented by the union, of wbic;b all the workmen of the company ~re members. The a~ment, 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 ~U~uirc 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 M~pioyment. Tbo aereement provided that D an employee shall' relire at the ~ of 58. Otl the expiry of· this a~ mtAt a. fClllh aaeeme11t was- eGioeled into. with tho.same unioo In 1966. 0t1 one of~ WOI'kmen·auaining.SS.years the Co~y 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_ttrlt~t !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 [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. A c D E 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 c~tention 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 a~ment 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 thro~gh 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 ·rew~ent · 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 ' 750 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 A B 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 b~n 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 g~ne 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 attaining- the 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 (1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. Sl. I F G H / 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 attaining- the age of 55 years. o c From what is stated above, the conte~ttion 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 Com~any 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. G H 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 a~e of retirement is sought to be enforced that he can raise a contro-. 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 3 S.C.R. 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 c~ntinue in service till he attained B c D 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 entitled·to 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 F · 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 j~c 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. A I c D E 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 r~tirement 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. (1) [1966] 2 S.C.R. 523.