# G. M. TALANG AND OTHERS v. SHAW WALLACE AND CO. AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1964] 7 S.C.R. 424
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 513 of 1963
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/g-m-talang-and-others-v-shaw-wallace-and-co-and-anr-3141
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Age of Retirement_.:.Trend in Bombay
Region-Conclusion in earlier decision recorded by Supreme
Court-Enquiry as to accuracy thereaf-lndustri.al TribunalPropriety.
Shortly after the extension of the age of retirement from 55
to 58 subject to the employee passing a medical examination at
55 in the respondent-company's Head Office at Calcutta, their
workmen at Bombay branch raised an industrial dispute claiming
the extension of their age of retirement from 55 to 60. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The company
resisted the claim but was agreeable to introduce similar provisions as introduced at Calcutta. The difficulty in accepting the
company's case was the conclusion recorded by the Supreme
Court in its earlier decisions that the trend in Bombay region
was to fix the age at 60. So the Tribunal considered it to be its
duty to enquire whether the conclusion recorded by the Supreme
Court was accurate and ultimately persuaded itself to hold that
no such trend was established in fact, and directed that the
age of retirement should be 58.
Held: (i) After careful consideration of all the materials
placed on this record. there was nothing to justify any doubt
about the correctness of what was said on the earlier occasion
by this Court. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in dealing
with this aspect of the problem is not very commendable and
its present conclusion that what was said by itself on an earlier
occasion and was confirmed by this Court in appeal, was in fact
inaccurate, is on the whole unsound.
What. the Tribunal has failed to notice is that instances
which ,may justify a revision of the judicial opinion expressed
on an earlier occasion about a particular trend must be strong
and unambiguous and they must speak for the period both
before and more particularly after the previous finding had
been recorded in the mat1:€r.
(ii) The information furnished by the several documents on
this record clearly show a consistent trend in the Bombay region ·
to fix the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff at 60.
Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 349 and Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. v.
Workmen [1960] 2 S.C.R. 51, relied on.

## Text

1964
March.24
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
G. M. TALANG AND OTHERS
v.
SHAW WALLACE AND CO. AND ANR
[1964]
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS
GUPTA, JJ.]
Industrial Dispute-Age of Retirement_.:.Trend in Bombay
Region-Conclusion in earlier decision recorded by Supreme
Court-Enquiry as to accuracy thereaf-lndustri.al TribunalPropriety.
Shortly after the extension of the age of retirement from 55
to 58 subject to the employee passing a medical examination at
55 in the respondent-company's Head Office at Calcutta, their
workmen at Bombay branch raised an industrial dispute claiming
the extension of their age of retirement from 55 to 60. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The company
resisted the claim but was agreeable to introduce similar provisions as introduced at Calcutta. The difficulty in accepting the
company's case was the conclusion recorded by the Supreme
Court in its earlier decisions that the trend in Bombay region
was to fix the age at 60. So the Tribunal considered it to be its
duty to enquire whether the conclusion recorded by the Supreme
Court was accurate and ultimately persuaded itself to hold that
no such trend was established in fact, and directed that the
age of retirement should be 58.
Held: (i) After careful consideration of all the materials
placed on this record. there was nothing to justify any doubt
about the correctness of what was said on the earlier occasion
by this Court. The approach adopted by the Tribunal in dealing
with this aspect of the problem is not very commendable and
its present conclusion that what was said by itself on an earlier
occasion and was confirmed by this Court in appeal, was in fact
inaccurate, is on the whole unsound.
What. the Tribunal has failed to notice is that instances
which ,may justify a revision of the judicial opinion expressed
on an earlier occasion about a particular trend must be strong
and unambiguous and they must speak for the period both
before and more particularly after the previous finding had
been recorded in the mat1:€r.
(ii) The information furnished by the several documents on
this record clearly show a consistent trend in the Bombay region ·
to fix the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff at 60.
Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd. v. Their
Workmen, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 349 and Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. v.
Workmen [1960] 2 S.C.R. 51, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 513
of 1963. Appeal by special leave frornthe Award dated December 1961 of the Maharashtra Industrial Tribunal in Reference (l.T.) No. 48 of 1961.
S. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-Genera/, c: L. Dudhia,
K. T. Sule, Atiqur Rahman and K. L. Hathi, for the appel~
I ants.
•
_,
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
425
M. C. Setalvad, N. V. Phadke, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C.
1964
Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the respondent No. 1.
G.M. Talang and
Ora.
March 24, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was deli-shaw wal'k...and
vered by
Co. and .dnr.
DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal arises out of an industrial
-dispute as regards the age of retirement. The first respondent,
Shaw Wallace & Co., was incorporated in January, 1946 as
a Private Limited Company to take over the business of the
partnership firm of the Shaw Wallace & Co., which had been
doing business in India for about 60 years. In July, 1947 the
Private Limited Company was converted into a Public Limited
Company. The Head Office of the Company is at Calcutta.
It has Branches in Bombay, Delhi and _\1adras. The general
practice of the Company both at the Head Office and the
Branch Offices appears to have been to retire its employees
at the age of 55 though in certain cases the Company in its
discretion permitted an employee to continue beyond that age.
In September, 1959 an agreement was entered into between
the Company and its employees at Calcutta under which the
age of retirement was extended to 58 years subject to the
employees passing a medical examination on reaching the age
of 55. Shortly after this the Company's employees at Bombay
raised a dispute regarding their retirement age. They claimed
, that no workman should be retired from se1vicc before he bad
completed 60 years of age. This dispute was ultimately referred
to the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra. Before the Tribunal
the Company resisted the workmen's claim but submitted that
it was agreeable to introduce for its Bombay employees provisions similar to those which had been introduced by agreement
for the Calcutta employees-retirement at the age of 58 sub·
ject to the employee passing a medical aamination on reac\1ing the age of 55.
The Tribunal has directed that the age of retirement
should be 58 but the Company may in its discretion and with
the express or implied consent of the employee concerned
continue an employee after he attains !hat age. It is aaainst
this decision that the present appeal has been filed by the
workmen.
As has already been noticed there is no dispute that the
age of compulsory retirement should not remain at 55. The
dispute is whether it should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It is
interesting to refer in this connection to the information that
has been collected by the Pay Commission 0957-59) as
regards the pensionable ages prescribed under the Pension
Insurance Schemes for employees generally or for industrial
Das Gupta, J.
•
1961
O.M. Talang and
Ors.
v.
8"""' W aUau and
Oo.and.Anr.
Das Gupta, J.
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
employees and under social assistance or universal schemes
in forty-eight countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable age is 70 in two countries; 67 in another two; 65 in
twenty-four, 60 in seventeen, 55 in two and 50 in one. Thus.
out of 48 countries for which information was available it was
found that in 45 countries the pensionable age was fixed at
60 or more. As the Pay Commission Report pointed out:--
"This is particularly remarkable, considering that the
countries differ widely in demographic constitution, levels of economic development, and climatic
and social condition; and it indicates a virtual
unanimity of competent opinion that balancing the
various factors-physiological, economic and social
-that are relevant, the normal working life should
continue up to the age of 60. and may well go on
up to 65 years.
It is undoubtedly more useful, however, and indeed essential· for our present purpose to examine the trends in this
matter in our own country and specially in the region in which
the present dispute has arisen. In the delicate task of adjusting needs of the employees to the interests of the employers
and what is even more important to the general interests of
the country at large, industrial adjudication has to pay special
attention to the prevailing practice in the indu:;trial region
concerned. If in any particular region employee:> have been
successful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60
this very success is bound to raise in others in the region
similar expectations. Refusal of similar relief to them is likely
to create discontent. It is. the endeavour of industrial adjudication to prevent this. That is why on questions of age of retirement and hours of work and other similar matters industrial
tribunals attach much weight to what has been done in other
industrial concerns in the neighbourhood in recent timeswhether by agreement or by adjudication.
In support of their demand for fixing the age of retirement at 60 the workmen tried to show that in recent yea"
at least the tendency in comparable concerns in Bombay
region has been to fix the retirement age at 60. The Chart
which is marked Ex. U-5 mentions 50 concerns in which the
age of retirement is 60. In several of these this age had been
fixed as far back as 1950 while in the rest the age was fixed
in later years, that is, between 1952 and 1961. The workmen
claim that these showed clearly a tendency in the Bombay
region to fix the age of retirement in comparable concerns at
60. Special emphasis was naturally placed on some decisions
of this Court which contained pronouncements as regards the
existence of such a trend. In Imperial Chemical Industries
"
7S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
427
(India) Private Ltd., v. The Workmen(') where the Tribunal
~
had raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58 and both parties G. M. TaUi"'l ""4
appealed, this Court pointed out that one of the documents
Or•.
on the record "would conclusively show that in Bombay the Shaw w.u;... tllfll
age of retirement is almost invariably fixed at 60 and not at Oo. awl Aw.
55". In an earlier decision of this Court in Du11/op Rubber Co.
Ltd., v. Workmen(') it had been urged that the employer was
na. GwflG, J.
an All India concern and that changing the terms and conditions of service in regard to the age of retirement in one place
might unsettle the uniformity and might have serious repercussions in other branches. The Court pointed out that though
this was a relevant consideration its effect had to be judged
in the light of other material and relevant circumstances, and
that one of the important material considerations in this connection would be that the age of retirement can be and often
is determined on industry-cum-region basis. The Court then
took into account the fact that the Tribunal had found that
in all the awards in recent times in various concerns in
Bombay region the trend had been to fix the age of retirement at 60 years. It was mainly in view of this finding of the
Tribunal that this Court refused to disturb the award fixing
the age of ff tirement at 60 years. It is important to notice
that the correctness of the Tribunal's finding that in all the
awards in recent times in the Bombay region the trend had
been to fix the retirement age at 60 years, was not challenged
before this Court .
In the present case an attempt appears to have been
made on behalf of the respondent Company to show that it
was not correct to say that the trend in Bombay region had
been to fix the age of retirement at 60. Reliance was placed
for this purpose on the Chart Ex. Cl. It appears that the respondent company wrote to the Bombay Chamber of Commerce to ascertain from its member~ncerns as regards the age
of retirement observed by them and the information ·received
from some of them was incorporated in this Chart. The workmen objected to this being received in evidence on the ground
that the original letters had riot been brought on the record.
It is not however seriously disputed that the Chart correctly
reproduces the information as regards the age of retirement
given by the various concerns named there. We think therefore
that the objection was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. This
Chart shows the age of retirement for 75 concerns.· In most of
the' cases the age of retirement is shown as 55 and in:. a few
at 58. At fiPSt sight therefore:. it appears to afford impressive
(') [1961) 2 S.C.R. 349.
(') [1960) 2 S.C.R. 51.
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19641
1964
testimony against the workmen's case that the recent trend
_, in Bombay has been to fix the age of retirement at 60. But on
G. M. Tala1'(J"""
Ora.
a closer examination it is clear that this document is of little
Slia wiJi
and assistance for finding out the recent trend. There is no indicaOo~ and A°:.;.
ti on at all as to how long ago the age of retirement in these
concerns was fixed at 55 or at 58. The Statement filed by the
Da. G•pl•, J.
workmen to explain this Chart shows tliat in two of these
cases, viz., Ingerzoll Band and Northern Assurance Co., the
demand for fixing the age of retirement at 60 years is under
negotiation. Exhibit U-6 also shows that in 25 of these concerns the clerical and subordinate staff were nl't organised into
trade unions. There is thus good ground for thinking that the
reason why these concerns have kept the age of retirement at
55 or 58 are special to them and do not show any recent trend
in the matter. In spite of these infirmities this document, Ex.
Cl, appears to have impressed the Tribunal. The main difficulty in accepting the Company's case on Lhis point, viz., the
pronouncements of this Court, however, remained. So, the
Tribunal considered it to be its duty to enquire whether the
conclusion recorded by this Court in some of its earlier decisions as to the relevant trend in the Bombay region was accurate. Having embatked on this enquiry, the Tribunal appears
to have taken considerable pains to perform this duty and it
has ultimately persuaded itself to hold that no such trend is
established in fact. We ought to add in this connection, that
the approach adopted by the Tribunal in dealing with this
aspect of the problem is not very commendable, and that its
present conclusion that what was said by itself on an earlier
occasion and was confirmed by this Court in appeal, was in
fact inaccurate, is on the whole unsound.
If this Court had erred in making those pronouncements
we would be the first to admit such mistakes and to correct
the error. After careful consideration of all the materials
placed on this record, we have, however, found nothing to
justify any doubt about the correctness ·Jf what was said on
the earlier occasion. On the contrary, the awards and agreements on the question of age ·of retirement about which information is furnished by the several documents on this record
clearly show a consistent trend in the Bombay region to fix
the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff at 60. The
very few departures from this practice which the Tribunal
has mentioned are, in our opinion, wholly insufficient to indicate any slowing down of this trend. What the Tribunal has
failed to notice is that instances which may justify a revision
of the judicial opinion expressed on an earlier occasion about
a particular trend must be strong and unambiguous and they
must speak for the period both before and more particularly
after the previous finding had been recorded in the matter.
.~
7 S.C.R.
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS
429
Notice has also to be taken in this connection of the
1964
Report of the Norms Committee in which the following a. M. Tata.g owl
opinion was expressed : -
Ors.
"After taking into consideration the views of the earlier /Jllaw w.Ti;... awl
Committees and Commissions including those of
Oo. and Anr.
the Second Pay Commission the report of which
D ~ G pl q
has been released recently, we feel that the retire-
"' u •, ·
meat age for workmen in all industries should be
fixed at 60. Accordingly, the norm for retirement
age is fixed at 60".
This considered opinion of a Committee on which bo!h
employers and employees were represented emphasised the
fact that in the Bombay region at least there is a general agreement that the age of retirement should be fixed at 60. The
Tribunal has referred to these observations, but has brushed
them aside in a way for which we find no justification.
On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances
disclosed by the oral and documentary evidence on this record.
we have come to the conclusion that the age of retirement
of the appellant-workmen should be fixed at 60.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal with costs, and in modification of the award made by the Tribunal direct that the age
of retirement for the workmen of the respondent be fixed at
60.
Appeal allowed.