IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32319 of 2010(L)
1. MOHAN.R., T.C.NO.42/954 (4),
... Petitioner
2. SURENDRAN N., SOBHA BHAVAN,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. M/S.TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD.,
3. THE MANAGER (PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATION)
For Petitioner :SRI.D.SAJEEV
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.)SC,TRAV.TITANIUM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
S.SIRIJAGAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were employees of the 2nd
respondent Company. They were superannuated on
attaining 58 years of age. According to them the
standing orders applicable to them have been amended
by Exhibit P4 order dated 28.04.2010 by the certifying
Officer where by the retirement age was enhanced to
60 years. The petitioners were superannuated after
passing of Exhibit P4 order. It is under the above
circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ
petition seeking the following reliefs:
i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
direction or order, commanding the 2nd respondent to
implement Ext.P4 order in the case of the petitioners
and thereby reinstate them in service, forthwith.
ii) To declare that petitioners are entitled to get the benefit
of Ext.P4 order since they have retired after the date of
amendment ordered in clause 12(c) of the standing
orders which extend the retirement age as on the last
date of the month in which the petitioners attains the
age of 60 years.
W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010
2
iii) To declare that the action on the part of the respondents
2 & 3 ordering retirement to the petitioners while
allowing their juniors to continue in service is
discriminatory and in violation of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the petitioners.
2. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that
under Section 7 of the Industrial Employment Standing
Orders Act, standing orders would not come into
operation until after expiry of seven days from the date
on which copies of the order of the appellate authority
are sent to the employer under sub-section 2 of Section
6 of the Act. According to them, they have already
preferred an appeal against Exhibit P4. It has not yet
been disposed of and therefore the amendment of the
standing orders have not yet come into force is their
contention.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
Section 7 of the Act reads as follows:
“Standing orders shall, unless an appeal is preferred
under section 6, come into operation on the expiry of
thirty days from the date on which authenticated copies
W.P.(C) 32319 of 2010
3thereof are sent under sub-section (3) of section 5, or
where an appeal as aforesaid is preferred, on the expiry of
seven days from the date on which copies of the order of
the appellate authority are sent under sub-section (2) of
section 6″.
4. It is not disputed before me that the appeal has
not yet been disposed of. That being so in view of
Section 7, the amended provision has not yet come into
force. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
Retirement of the petitioners would be subject to
the result of the appeal. If ultimately the appeal is
dismissed, the petitioners would be entitled to be re-
instated in service and also for all service benefits for
the period they were kept out of service after
completing 58 years of age.
The writ petition is disposed of, as above.
S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE.
rkc