{"id":153348,"date":"1983-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983"},"modified":"2016-09-26T06:03:43","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T00:33:43","slug":"workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","title":{"rendered":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 356, \t\t 1984 SCR (1) 251<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nWORKMEN OF THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (REFININGDI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/10\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  356\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 251\n 1983 SCC  (4) 470\t  1983 SCALE  (2)736\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1987 SC  51\t (4,6)\n D\t    1987 SC1527\t (25,34)\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial Disputes  Act-Industrial  dispute  regarding\nraising of  retirement age-Different factors for determining\nretirement age-Trend  in a  particular\tarea-Most  important\nfactor-Trend  need   not  be  static-Modern  conditions\t and\ngeneral trend  in favour  of raising retirement age-Trend in\nBombay region  in   flavour of\traising retirement  age. For\napplying industry-cum  regional formula-  If  no  comparable\nindustries  in\t the  region-Regional  aspect  to  be  given\nprecedence.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     An industrial dispute with regard to the raising of the\nage of\tretirement of  the clerical  staff employed  in\t the\nRefinery Division  of the  respondent oil  Company at Bombay\nfrom 55 to 60 years was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.\nThe workmen  contended that  there was a trend in the Bombay\nregion to fix the age of retirement of clerical employees at\n60 years  and in  the comparable  concerns as well as in the\nMarketing Division  of the  Company itself  the age  of\t the\nclerical employees was above 55 years. The Company contended\nthat the  wage scales  of their\t clerical employees were far\nbetter than  those of  similar categories  of  employees  in\ncomparable concerns  and that  the company  took a  generous\nview in\t the settlement\t dated 31-10-1973  and arrived\tat a\npackage deal  and revised  the\tbenefits  of  the  employees\ntaking into  consideration the agreement of the employees to\ncontinue the  age of retirement of the clerical employees of\nthe Refinery  Division at  55 years.  Neither party  led any\noral  evidence\t but  filed   their  respective\t comparative\nstatements. The\t Tribunal found\t as a  fact  that  the\twage\nscales of  the Company\twere not  much better  than the wage\nscales of  other  comparable  concerns.\t The  Tribunal\talso\nnoticed that  the age of retirement of the clerical staff of\nthe Company  in its  Marketing Division\t both at  Bombay and\nother places  was fixed\t at 58 years. But the Tribunal found\nthat the Company's contention regarding the settlement being\na package deal in regard even to the age of retirement after\ntaking other  benefits into  consideration was\tnot  without\nsubstance and  observed that it was, however, not sufficient\nto reject the workmen's demand in toto and that it had to be\ntaken into account while considering the extent to which the\nage of\tretirement should  be raised.  Having regard  to the\ncircumstances of  the case and in the interest of industrial\nharmony, the  Tribunal raised  the age\tof retirement  to 58\nyears only.  In appeal\tto this\t Court the workmen relied on\nthe 'trend' in the Bombay region while the Company relied on\nthe position in other oil Companies.\n252\n     Allowing the appeal and fixing the age of retirement at\n60 years, by majority.\n     HELD - (Per Desai and Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)\n     In fixing the age of superannuation, the most important\nfactor that  has to be taken into consideration is the trend\nin a particular area. From the various decisions rendered by\nthis Court  and by  the Tribunals, it is obvious that in the\nearly sixties  the trend  in the  Bombay region was to raise\nthe age of superannuation to 60 years. Industrial and labour\nconditions do  not remain  stagnant despite  the passage  of\ntime. Industrial-labour relations need revision from time to\ntime to\t fit and suit changing conditions. That there was an\nupward trend  to raise\tthe age\t of retirement\tto 60 in the\nearly sixties  may not\tnecessarily mean that the same trend\nhas continued till today. [259 H; 260 D-E; 260 G-H]\n     Guest, Keen, Willians Private Ltd. vs. P. J. Sterling &\nOrs.<\/a> [1960]  1 S.C.R.  348; Dunlop Rubber Company Limited v.\nWorkmen\t &  Ors.<\/a>  [1960]  2  S.C.R.  51;  Imperial  Chemical\nIndustries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen<\/a> [1961] 2 S.C.R. 349;\nBritish Paints\t(India) Ltd.  v. Its workmen [1961] 2 S.C.R.\n523; G.M.  Talang v. Shaw Wallace & Co.<\/a> [1964] 7 S.C.R. 426;\nBurmah Shell  Oil Storage  & Distributing  Company of  India\nLtd. v. Their Workmen<\/a> [1970] I LLJ 363, referred to.\n     In the  instant case,  the Company\t did not  plead that\nthere was any reversal of the trend nor did the Company urge\nthat there  was any such reversal of the trend. On the other\nhand, it  may very  well be  said that\tthere has  been much\nprogress in  the last  two decades  in the  matter of better\nliving conditions  and availability  of medical\t and  health\nfacilities and,\t therefore, a  further raise  of the  age of\nretirement may\tbe considered  necessary and justified. [260\nH; 261 A]\n     In the instant case while raising the retirement age of\nthe clerical  staff of\tthe Refinery  Division to  58  years\ninstead of 60 years since the retirement age of the clerical\nstaff of  the Marketing\t Division of  the Company  had\tbeen\nfixed at 58 years, the Tribunal fell into a serious error in\nfailing to notice the relevant and outstanding fact that the\nclerical staff\tof the\tMarketing Division  have  a  pension\nscheme while  the clerical  staff of  the Refinery  Division\nhave no\t such  scheme.\tThe  general  terminal\tbenefits  on\nattaining the  age of  superannuation are  pension, gratuity\nand provident  fund. It\t is not\t in dispute  that while\t the\nclerical staff\tof the Marketing Division have all the three\nbenefits, the  clerical staff  of the  Refinery Division are\nnot entitled  to any  pension. This must necessarily have an\nimpact on  the raising\tof  their  retirement  age.  On\t the\nmaterial available  the Court thinks that the retirement age\nin the\tcase of\t clerical staff\t of  the  Refinery  Division\nshould be fixed at 60 years. [262 E-H]\n     In\t applying   the\t region-cum-industry   formula\t the\nemphasis to  be placed\ton region  or industry\tdepends upon\nvarying factors. Where there are no comparable industries in\nthe region,  the regional  aspect of the region-cum-industry\nformula must be given precedence. [263 F; 265 G]\n     Greaves Cotton  and Co.  Ltd. v. Their Workmen<\/a> 1964 (I)\nL.L.J. 342;  Workmen of Hindustan Motors v. Hindustan Motors<\/a>\n1962 (II) L.L.J. 352;\n253\nFrench Motor  Car Company  v. Their Workmen<\/a> 1962 (II) L.L.J.\n744; Workmen  of Orient\t Paper Mills  Ltd. v.  Orient  Paper\nMills Ltd.<\/a> 1969 (II) L.L.J. 398\t referred to:\n     It\t is   observed\tthat  nowadays,\t because  of  better\nconditions of  living and availability of medical and health\nfacilities, the\t average span  of life\thas increased  and a\nperson between 55 and 60 years of age is alert, active, hale\nand healthy may be said to be at the prime of his life. That\nis also\t the time  when he  has to  meet  several  financial\ncommitments and\t demands. To retire him at that age may mean\nvirtually throwing  him to the wolves. Can the nation afford\nto throw  away the  knowledge and experience of these people\nby retiring  them when they are still capable of turning out\nsome years  of good  work  and\thave  on  its  hand  several\nfamilies unable\t to fully  support themselves ? On the other\nhand, can  the nation  afford to  have an army of unemployed\nyoungmen necessarily  leading bitter and frustrated lives by\nallowing them  to fritter  away their  energies in unhealthy\npursuits to  which they may be tempted ? But then arises the\nbroader question,  is the retirement of men of experience at\nan age\twhen they  are still  useful to\t the  community\t the\nproper solution\t to the\t problem of  unemployment among\t the\nyoung  ?  Is  not  the\tsolution  the  creation\t of  greater\nemployment opportunities,  by increasing  production and its\nmodes ?\t All these  questions are  difficult to\t answer\t and\nrequire deep investigation, research and study. [261 D-H]\n(Per Varadarajan, J.\n     Though the\t trend in  a particular\t area  is  the\tmost\nimportant factor to be taken into account for fixing the age\nof retirement  of employees,  it is  only one of the several\nfactors like  the nature  of work assigned to the employees,\nthe wage structure of the employees, the retirement benefits\nand other  amenities available\tto the employees, the nature\nof  climate   where  the  employees  work  and\tthe  age  of\nsuperannuation fixed in comparable industries in the region.\nMoreover,  the\ttrend  must  undoubtedly  be  in  comparable\nindustries. [272 D-E; F]\n     Guest Keen\t Williams Private  Ltd. v. Sterling and Ors.<\/a>\n1959 (II) L.L.J. 405; Burmah Shell (Delhi region) (1971) (I)\nL.L.J. 363 referred to.\n     In the  present case, the employees have not placed any\nmaterial on  those factors  before the\tTribunal apart\tfrom\nrelying upon  the trend in the Bombay region. They have also\nnot placed  any material on record to show that there is any\ntrend in  the Refinery\tDivision of any other oil company in\nthe Bombay  region to  fix the age of retirement of clerical\nemployees at  60 years.\t They have  relied  upon  the  trend\ngenerally and  not in  any comparable  industry. There is no\nevidence to  show that\tthere is  any other  Refinery in the\nBombay region than that of the Company. From the comparative\nstatements filed  by the  Company, it appears that the trend\nin the\tRefinery Division  of  the  Company  throughout\t the\ncountry is  to fix  the age  of retirement  of the  clerical\nemployees at  58 years. There is nothing in the award of the\nTribunal to show that the employees contended before it that\nthe \"trend  in the  Bombay region\"  heavily relied  upon  by\nthem, could  be general\t in nature  and\t not  in  comparable\nindustries in the region. [272 F; G; 273 B-C]\n254\n     Unfortunately, very  limited material  is available  on\nrecord for  arriving   at  a  decision\tin  this  case.\t The\ncomparative statements\tfiled by  the Company  show that the\npay  scales  of\t junior\t grade\tclerical  employees  in\t the\nRefinery Division  of the respondent company are better than\nthose in another oil company. The pay scales of junior grade\nclerical employees  and senior\tgrade clerical\temployees of\nthe company  in the  Refinery  Division\t at  Bombay  compare\nfavourably  with   pay\tscales\t of  junior  grade  clerical\nemployees  and\t senior\t grade\tclerical  employees  in\t the\nMarketing Division  of the  Company at\tBombay Therefore, in\nconsidering the absence of a pension scheme for the clerical\nemployees of the Company in the Refinery Division one has to\ntake note of the fact that the pay scales of those employees\nare more  advantageous and  compare favourably\twith the pay\nscales of clerical employees of the company in the Marketing\nDivision at  Bombay. There  is no material on record to show\nthe quantum  of\t disadvantage  to  which  the  employees  in\nquestion are  subjected by  the absence\t of a pension scheme\ncompared with  the section  of\tclerical  employees  of\t the\nCompany's Marketing  Division at Bombay who have the benefit\nof a  pension scheme  in addition  to gratuity and provident\nfund benefits to which alone the employees concerned in this\nappeal\tare   entitled\tas  retirement\tbenefits.  In  those\ncircumstances,\tthere\tis  no\t satisfactory\treason\t for\ninterfering with  the Tribunal's  award raising\t the age  of\nretirement  of\tthe  clerical  employees  of  the  Company's\nRefinery Division  at Bombay from 55 years to 58 years. [270\nA; 271 A; E-F; 272 B-C; 273 H; 274 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1396 of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the Award dated the 26th
\nJuly,  1980   of  Shri\tA.K.  Thorat,  Industrial  Tribunal,
\nMaharashtra, Bombay passed in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     M.K. Ramamurthi,  P.  Gaur,  Jitendra  Sharma  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
     G.B. Pai,\tO.C. Mathur,  S. Kumaran,  Ms. Meera Mathur,
\nD.N. Misra for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The following Judgments were delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA\tREDDY,\tJ.  :  The  workmen  of\t the  Bharat
\nPetroleum Corporation  Limited, Bombay\traised an Industrial
\ndispute with  regard to\t the retirement\t age of the clerical
\nstaff employed\tin  the\t Refinery  Division  of\t the  Bharat
\nPetroleum Corporation  Limited at  Bombay. The demand of the
\nworkmen was that the retirement age of the clerical staff of
\nthe Refinery Division at Bombay must be raised from 55 years
\nto 60  years in\t keeping with  the  ‘trend’  in\t the  Bombay
\nregion. The  Company resisted  the demand on the ground that
\nin all\tsimilar oil  companies, the  retirement age  of\t the
\nclerical
\n255<\/span>
\nstaff engaged  in the Refinery Division had never been fixed
\nat 60  years. Before the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at
\nBombay to  whom the  dispute was  referred for adjudication,
\nneither party led any oral evidence. The workmen relied upon
\nseveral decisions  of this court to establish that the trend
\nof industry  in Bombay\twas to fix the retirement age of the
\nclerical staff\tat 60  years, while  the  company  contented
\nitself by  filing a  statement showing the age of retirement
\nof clerical  staff employed  in various\t oil companies.\t The
\nIndustrial Tribunal  found as a fact that the wage scales of
\nthe company  were not  much better  than the  wage scales of
\nother comparable  concerns.  The  Industrial  Tribunal\talso
\nnoticed that  the age of retirement of the clerical staff of
\nthe company  in its  Marketing Division\t both at  Bombay and
\nother places was fixed at 58 years. The Industrial Tribunal,
\ntherefore, held\t that there  was no  valid  reason  why\t the
\nretirement  age\t of  the  clerical  staff  employed  in\t the
\nRefinery Division should not be raised at least to 58 years.
\nBut having  regard to  the circumstance\t that  the  clerical
\nstaff employed\tin the\tRefinery Division  had already\tbeen
\ngranted, under\ta settlement, the benefits of Provident Fund
\nand Gratuity  and having  further regard  to the  fact\tthat
\nwhile the  number of  members of the clerical staff employed
\nin the Refinery Division was 148 only, there were as many as
\n1095 workmen  in the  non-clerical category,  who would also
\nsurely raise  a dispute\t to revise their retirement age, the
\nIndustrial  Tribunal   thought\tthat   in  the\tinterest  of
\nindustrial  harmony,   it  would  be  proper  to  raise\t the
\nretirement age\tof the\tclerical staff\tto 58 years only and
\nnot to\t60 years.  The workmen\thave preferred\tthis  appeal
\nunder Art. 136 of the Constitution. As before the Industrial
\nTribunal, so  too before  us,  the  workmen  relied  on\t the
\n‘trend’ in the Bombay region while the company relied on the
\nposition in other oil companies.\n<\/p>\n
     In fixing\tthe age\t of retirement, several factors have
\nto be  taken into  consideration. These\t factors  have\tbeen
\nexplained at length in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. v.
\nP.J. Sterling  & Ors.,\tDunlop\tRubber\tCompany\t Limited<\/a>  v.
\nWorkmen &  Others, Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt.
\nLtd. v. Workmen, British Paints (India) Ltd.<\/a> v. Its Workmen,
\nG.M. Talang
\n256<\/span>
\nv. Shaw\t Wallace &  Co.’ and  Burmah Shell  Oil\t Storage  of
\nDistributing Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen.\n<\/p>\n
     Guest, Keen  Williams Private  Ltd. v. P. J. Sterling &
\nOthers was  a case from Calcutta and it may not be useful to
\ndiscover the  trend in\tthe Bombay  region. However, some of
\nthe relevant  factors to be taken into account in fixing the
\nage of\tsuperannuation have  been stated and we may usefully
\nextract the  observations made by the learned judges in that
\ncase. It was said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In fixing  the age  of superannuation  industrial
\n     tribunals have  to take  into account  several relevant
\n     factors. What is the nature of the work assigned to the
\n     employees in  the course  of their employment ? What is
\n     the nature\t of the\t wage structure\t paid to them ? What
\n     are  the\tretirement  benefits   and  other  amenities
\n     available to  them ?  What\t is  the  character  of\t the
\n     climate where the employees work and what is the age of
\n     superannuation fixed  in comparable  industries in\t the
\n     same region ? What is generally the practice prevailing
\n     in the  industry in  the past in the matter of retiring
\n     its employees  ? These and other relevant facts have to
\n     be weighed\t by the\t tribunal in  every case  when it is
\n     called upon  to fix  an age  of  superannuation  in  an
\n     industrial dispute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The ‘trend’  of industry  in the Bombay region to raise
\nthe age\t of retirement\tfrom 55\t to 60\tyears was noticed by
\nthis court  in Dunlop  Rubber Company  v. Workmen  & Others,
\nImperial Chemical  Industries (India)  Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> v. Workmen,
\nBritish Paints\t(India) Ltd.  v. Its Workmen, G.M. Talang<\/a> v.
\nShaw  Wallace\t&  Co.\t and  Burmah  Shell  Oil  Storage  &
\nDistributing Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen.\n<\/p>\n
     In the Dunlop Rubber Company case, the Tribunal noticed
\nthat the  trend in the Bombay region was to raise the age of
\nretirement  to\t sixty\tyears\tfor  clerical\tstaff\tand,
\naccordingly, raised  the age  of the  clerical staff  of the
\ncompany to sixty years, notwithstanding the fact that in the
\nprevious agreement, the retirement age was
\n257<\/span>
\nfixed at  55 years. The Supreme Court upheld the award as it
\naccorded with  the prevailing conditions in many concerns in
\nthat region.  One of  the submissions  made to\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt was that the clerical staff of the company employed in
\nBombay was  a small  minority of  the total  clerical  staff
\nemployed by  the company through out India, that in the case
\nof the\tlarge majority\temployed outside  Bombay, the age of
\nretirement was\t55 and, therefore, the retirement age of the
\nsmall minority\tof workmen  employed in Bombay should not be
\nraised from  55 to  60 years. It was argued that the company
\nwas an\tAll-India concern  and occupied\t a special position,
\nand it\twas, therefore,\t desirable and proper that no change
\nshould be  made to  benefit  a\tsmall  minority\t of  workmen
\nemployed in  Bombay. The  submission  was  repelled  by\t the
\nSupreme Court and it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There is  no doubt  that in\tthe case  of an all-
\n     India concern  it would  be advisable  to have  uniform
\n     conditions of  service through out India and if uniform
\n     conditions prevail\t in any such concern they should not
\n     be lightly\t changed. At  the same\ttime, it  cannot  be
\n     forgotten that  industrial adjudication  is  based,  in
\n     this country  at least,  on what  is known as industry-
\n     cum-region basis  and cases  may arise  where it may be
\n     necessary in  following this  principle to make changes
\n     even where\t the conditions\t of service of an all-India,
\n     concern  are   uniform.  Besides,\t however,  desirable
\n     uniformity may  be in  the case  of all-India concerns,
\n     the Tribunal  cannot  abstain  from  seeing  that\tfair
\n     conditions of  service prevail  in\t the  industry\twith
\n     which it is concerned. If, therefore, any scheme, which
\n     may be uniformly in force through out India in the case
\n     of an  all-India concern,\tappears to be unfair and not
\n     in\t accord\t with  the  prevailing\tconditions  in\tsuch
\n     matters, it  would be  the duty of the tribunal to make
\n     changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into
\n     line with\tthe prevailing\tconditions in  such matters,
\n     particularly in  the region  in which  the tribunal  is
\n     functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is
\n     made by  only a  small minority of the workmen employed
\n     in one  place out\tof  the\t many  where  the  all-India
\n     concern carries on business.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It will\t be  seen  that\t great\temphasis  was  laid  on\t the
\nconditions prevailing  in the  region even  to the extent of
\noverriding the conditions
\n258<\/span>
\nof service  of other  workmen in  the employment of the very
\ncompany elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
     In Imperial  Chemical Industries  (India) Pvt.  Ltd. v.
\nThe Workmen, Gajendragadkar, J<\/a> observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It  is   generally\trecognised   in\t  industrial
\n     adjudication that\twhere an  employer adopts a fair and
\n     reasonable pension\t scheme that would play an important
\n     part in fixing the age of retirement at a comparatively
\n     earlier stage.  If a  retired employee can legitimately
\n     look forward  to the prospect of earning a pension then
\n     the hardship resulting from early compulsory retirement
\n     is considerably  mitigated; that  is  why\tcases  where
\n     there is  a fair  and reasonable  scheme of  pension in
\n     vogue would  not be  comparable  or  even\trelevant  in
\n     dealing with  the age  of retirement in a concern where
\n     there is so much pension scheme”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In that\t case it  was submitted\t by the Attorney General who
\nappeared for  the company  that the company was an All-India
\nconcern and  it was  of great  importance that the terms and
\nconditions of  service prevailing in several branches of the
\ncompany all  over the  country should  be stable and uniform
\nand that  in  the  matter  of  retirement  the\tcompany\t had
\nuniformly fixed\t the age  of retirement at 55 since 1950 and
\nthis arrangement  should not  be disturbed  because it would
\ninevitably  upset   the\t age  of  retirement  in  all  other
\nbranches. It was also submitted that the Tribunal had raised
\nthe age\t of retirement\tfrom 55\t to 58\tand that the Supreme
\nCourt should not interfere with the decision of the Tribunal
\nand further  raised it\tto 60.\tIt was\talso urged  that the
\ngeneral terms  and conditions provided by the company to its
\nemployees were very liberal and that the industrial concerns
\nin Bombay  where the  age of retirement had been fixed at 60
\nwere not  comparable  to  the  company\tand,  therefore,  no
\nimportance should  be attached\tto the\ttrend  disclosed  by
\nthose companies.  All these submissions were rejected by the
\ncourt on  the primary consideration that the recent trend in
\nthe Bombay  area clearly  appeared to  be to  fix the age of
\nretirement at 60.\n<\/p>\n
     In British\t Paints India  Limited v.  Its Workmen,<\/a> this
\ncourt expressed\t the view  that there  had  been  a  general
\nimprovement in\tthe standard  of health\t in the\t country and
\nthat longevity\thad increased and therefore, fixation of age
\nof retirement at 60 years appeared to
\n259<\/span>
\nbe quite  reasonable in the circumstance. The court, further
\nobserved that the age of retirement at 55 years was fixed in
\nthe last  century in  Government service  and had become the
\npattern for  fixing the\t age of\t retirement every where. The
\ncourt then said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “But time  in our opinion has now come considering
\n     the improvement  in the standard of health and increase
\n     in longevity  in this  country during  the\t last  fifty
\n     years that\t the age  of retirement should be fixed at a
\n     higher level,  and we  consider that generally speaking
\n     in\t the   present\tcircumstances\tfixing\tthe  age  of
\n     retirement at 60 years would be fair and proper, unless
\n     there are\tspecial circumstances justifying fixation of
\n     a lower age of retirement”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In G.M. Talang v. Shaw Wallace & Co.<\/a> reference was also
\nmade to\t the report  of the  Second Pay Commission which had
\nreferred to  the age  of retirement  in 48  countries of the
\nworld and  to the report of the Norms Committee, a Committee
\non which  both employers  and employees of the Bombay region
\nwere represented, which had said:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “After taking\t into consideration the views of the
\n     earlier Committees\t and Commissions  including these of
\n     the Second Pay Commissions the report of which has been
\n     released recently,\t we feel that the retirement age for
\n     workmen, in  all industries,  should  be  fixed  at  60
\n     years. Accordingly the norm for retirement age is fixed
\n     at 60”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The comment  of\t the  court  on\t the  report  of  the  Norms
\nCommittee was:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “This considered  opinion of\ta Committee on which
\n     both   employers\tand   employees\t  were\t represented
\n     emphasised the fact that in the Bombay region, at least
\n     there is a general agreement that the age of retirement
\n     should be fixed at 60.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  Burmah  Shell  Oil\t Company  case,\t this  court
\nobserved.-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In fixing  the age  of  superannuation  the\tmost
\n     important\tfactor\t that\thas   to   be\ttaken\tinto
\n     consideration is  the trend  in a particular area. That
\n     position is  made clear  by this court in Talang (G M )
\n     and Others\t v. Shaw  Wallace &  Co. Ltd.  There  is  no
\n     denying the fact
\n260<\/span>
\n     that life\texpectation has\t greatly increased in recent
\n     years due\tto healthier  living conditions, better food
\n     and improved  medical facilities though we have still a
\n     long way to go in that regard. Under modern conditions,
\n     speaking generally,  the efficiency  of workmen  is not
\n     impaired till  about 60  years. The  needs of a workman
\n     are likely\t to be\tgreater between\t the age of 50 to 60
\n     years as  during that  period he  has  to\teducate\t his
\n     children,\tmarry\this  daughters,\t  in   addition\t  to
\n     maintaining his  family. If one looks at the word trend
\n     it\t is  obvious  that  the\t age  of  superannuation  is
\n     gradually\t\t\t\t\t      pushed
\n     up……………………………………………..
\n     …. …………….As  we said earlier, in the matter
\n     of fixing\tthe age\t of superannuation,  the trend\tin a
\n     particular area is the most important factor, though in
\n     the matter\t of  determining  the  other  conditions  of
\n     service  of   workmen,  the  principle  of\t region-cum-
\n     industry\tis    by   and\t large\t the   determinative
\n     factor………………………………………….
\n     ….”From the  various decisions rendered by this court
\n     and by  the tribunals,  it is obvious that the trend is
\n     to raise  the age\tof superannuation.  It is also clear
\n     from those\t decisions that\t so far\t as Bombay, Calcutta
\n     and Delhi\tareas are  concerned, the  trend appears  to
\n     raise the age of superannuation to 60 years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the\tfacts of  the case, however, the court noticing that
\nin the\tappellant company,  there was  a fair pension scheme
\nfor the\t clerical staff,  fixed the age of superannuation in
\ntheir case at 58 years, while leaving untouched the decision
\nof the\tTribunal fixing\t the retirement age of other workmen
\nat 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  to be  noticed that the four cases which related
\nto the\tBombay region  were all\t of the\t early sixties.\t Two
\ndecades have passed, Industrial and labour conditions do not
\nremain stagnant\t despite the  passage of  time.\t Industrial-
\nlabour relations  need revision from time to time to fit and
\nsuit changing  conditions. That there was an upward trend to
\nraise the  age of  retirement to  sixty in the early sixties
\nmay not\t necessarily mean  that the same trend has continued
\ntill today.  But, in  the present  case, the company did not
\nplead that  there was any reversal of the trend nor did Shri
\nG.B. Pai,  learned counsel  for the  company, urge before us
\nthat there  was any such reversal of the trend. On the other
\nhand, it may very well be said
\n261<\/span>
\nthat there has been much progress in the last two decades in
\nthe matter  of better  living conditions and availability of
\nmedical and  health facilities\tand,  therefore,  a  further
\nraise of  the age  of retirement may be considered necessary
\nand justified.\tShri Pai rightly did not urge before us that
\nthere was any reversal of the trend in the Bombay region and
\nwe are, therefore spared from going into that question.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  Dunlop Rubber  Company Case and in the Imperial
\nChemical Industries Case, the Supreme Court primarily relied
\non the\ttrend in  the region  and in  the Burmah  Shell\t oil
\nCompany case,  the  Court  observed  that  the\ttrend  in  a
\nparticular area\t was the most important factor in the matter
\nof fixing  the age  of superannuation.\tAnother factor which
\nappears to be receiving importance in certain circles is the
\nrising rate  of unemployment amongst the younger generation.
\nThe effect of increasing or decreasing the age of retirement
\non the rate of unemployment in the younger generation and on
\nthe household  economics of the older generation is a matter
\nfor deep  study and  investigation.  There  is\tno  evidence
\nbefore us  on these  points. Nowadays, as pointed out in the
\nBurmah Shell  oil Company’s case and other cases, because of
\nbetter conditions  of living and availability of medical and
\nhealth facilities,  the average\t span of  life has increased
\nand a  person between  55 and  60 years\t of  age  is  alert,
\nactive, hale  and healthy and may be said to be at the prime
\nof his\tlife. That  is also  the time  when he\thas to\tmeet
\nseveral financial  commitments and demands. To retire him at
\nthat age  may mean virtually to throw him to the wolves. Can
\nthe nation  afford to  have on\tits  hand  several  families
\nunable to  fully support  themselves ? Can the nation afford
\nto throw  away the  knowledge and experience of these people
\nby retiring  them when they are still capable of turning out
\nsome years  of good work ? On the other hand, can the nation
\nafford to  have an army of unemployed, youngmen, necessarily
\nleading bitter\tand frustrated lives ? Can the nation afford
\nto allow  them to  fritter away\t their energies in unhealthy
\npursuits to  which they may be tempted ? But then arises the
\nbroader question,  is the retirement of men of experience at
\nan age\twhen they  are still  useful to\t the  community\t the
\nproper solution\t to the\t problem of  unemployment among\t the
\nyoung ?\t Is it\tnot an\tunimaginative solution\t? Is not the
\nsolution the  creation of  greater employment opportunities,
\nby increasing  production and  its modes  ?  All  these\t are
\nquestions which\t are difficult to answer though everyone has
\nan opinion,  often ad  hoc.  These  questions  require\tdeep
\ninvestigation, research and study. We cannot properly answer
\nthem nor is there any evidence on these points. The counsel,
\nwe must say in fairness, refrained
\n262<\/span>
\nfrom arguing  that the\tretirement age\tshould not be raised
\nbecause of  the rising\trate of\t unemployment  and  we\talso
\nrefrain\t from  expressing  any\topinion.  The  workmen\twere
\ncontent to  rely on  the undoubted  trend as revealed by the
\ndecisions of  this court and the company was content to rely
\non the\tcomparative statement  of retirement age of clerical
\nstaff in  other oil  companies. We  are compelled  to decide
\nthis case  on the  limited material  available to us and we,
\ntherefore, confine the decision to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     The Tribunal  noticed that the age of retirement of the
\nclerical staff\tof the company in its Marketing Division was
\n58 years and observed:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Similarly, it  is apparent  that the\t company has
\n     fixed the\tage of\tretirement of  the clerical staff in
\n     its Marketing Division, both in Bombay and other places
\n     at 58  years. I  do not find any valid reason while the
\n     concerned workmen\tshould be  denied a raise in the age
\n     of their  retirement at  least  to\t the  extent  of  58
\n     years.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     So according to the Tribunal, the retirement age of the
\nclerical staff\tof the Refinery Division had to be increased
\nat least  to 58\t years, since  the  retirement\tage  of\t the
\nclerical staff\tof the Marketing Division of the Company had
\nbeen fixed at years. The relevant and outstanding fact which
\nthe Tribunal  failed to\t notice here  was that\tthe clerical
\nstaff of  the Marketing Division have a pension scheme while
\nthe clerical  staff of\tthe Refinery  Division have  no such
\nscheme. The  general terminal  benefits on attaining the age
\nof superannuation  are pension, gratuity and provident fund.
\nIt is  not in  dispute that  while the clerical staff of the
\nMarketing Division  have all  three terminal  benefits,\t the
\nclerical staff\tof the Refinery Division are not entitled to
\nany pension.  This must\t necessarily have  an impact  on the
\nraising\t of   their  retirement\t  age.\tTherefore,   without
\ntravelling outside  the very  company,\twe  think  that\t the
\nIndustrial Tribunal  fell into a serious error in failing to
\nnotice that  there was\tno pension  scheme in  the  case  of
\nclerical staff of the Refinery Division while there was such
\na scheme  in the  case of  a clerical staff of the Marketing
\nDivision. On the material available to us, we think that the
\nretirement age in the case of clerical staff of the Division
\nshould be fixed at 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri G.B.\tPai, learned  counsel  for  the\t Respondent-
\nCorporation drew our attention to the circumstances that the
\nnew scales of pay
\n263<\/span>
\nof the\tclerical staff\tof  the\t Refinery  Division  of\t the
\nRespondent-Corporation compared\t favourably with  the scales
\nof pay\tof the\tclerical staff of other refineries elsewhere
\nin Indian  and were  higher than  the scales  of pay  of the
\nclerical staff\tof the Marketing Division of the Respondent-
\nCorporation itself. Shri Pai, however would not go so far as
\nto say\tthat the  scales of pay were so designed taking into
\naccount the provision for pensionary benefits or the lack of
\nit. He\tcould not do so for the obvious reason that it would
\nbe an  irrelevant consideration\t unless he could assert that
\nthe wage  structure took  into\taccount\t the  ‘capacity\t for
\nsavings’ factor. Again, obviously, he could not so assert as
\nthat was  never the  company’s case  and also in view of the
\nrising universal inflationary trend of which we are bound to
\ntake judicial notice. The differing nature and conditions of
\nwork may well be the reason for the different scales of pay.
\nWe assume  nothing and\tso we make no comment one way or the
\nother in  the absence  of evidence.  It is  enough  for\t the
\npresent purpose\t to say\t that the  Tribunal did not base its
\nconclusion on this circumstance.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Pai invited our attention to the circumstance that
\nin other  refineries elsewhere\tin India, the retirement age
\nof clerical staff has generally been fixed at 58. But we are
\nprimarily concerned  with the trend in the Bombay region. In
\nmatters of this nature, greater importance must naturally be
\ngiven to  the regional\tfactor That  was why  in the  Dunlop
\ncase, emphasis\twas  laid  on  the  “prevailing\t conditions,
\nparticularly  in  the  region”,\t in  the  Imperial  Chemical
\nIndustries  case,   the\t trend\tin  the\t Bombay\t region\t was
\nconsidered the\tmost vital  factor and\tin the\tBurmah Shell
\ncase,  it   was\t stressed   that  in   fixing  the   age  of
\nsuperannuation, the  most important  factor that  had to  be
\ntaken into  consideration was  the trend  in the  particular
\narea. We  may add  here that  in  applying  the\t region-cum-
\nindustry formula,  the emphasis\t to be\tplaced on  region or
\nindustry depends upon varying factors. In Greaves Cotton and
\nCo. Ltd.  v. Their  workmen, this  Court observed that where
\nthe number  of industries  of the  same kind in a particular
\nregion was  small, it  was the regin aspect of the industry-
\ncum-region formula  which assumed importance particularly in
\nthe case  of clerical  and subordinate\tstaff. Reference was
\nmade to\t Workmen of Hindustan Motors v. Hindustan Motors and
\nFrench Motor Car Company<\/a> v. their Workmen and it was said:\n<\/p>\n
264<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Where there\tare a  large  number  of  industrial
\n     concerns of  the same kind in the same region, it would
\n     be proper\tto put greater emphasis on the industry part
\n     of the  industry-cum-region principle as that would put
\n     all concerns  on a\t more or  less equal  footing in the
\n     matter of production costs and therefore, in the matter
\n     of competition  in the  market and\t this  will  equally
\n     apply to clerical and subordinate staff whose wages and
\n     dearness  allowance   also\t go   into  calculation\t  of
\n     production costs.\tBut where  the number  of comparable
\n     concerns is small in a particular region and therefore,
\n     the competition  aspect is\t not of the same importance,
\n     the region\t part of  the  industry\t cum-region  formula
\n     assumes greater  importance particularly with reference
\n     to clerical and subordinate staff and this was what was
\n     emphasised in  the French\tMotor Car Company case where
\n     the company was already paying the highest wages in the
\n     particular line  of business  and therefore  comparison
\n     had to  be made with as similar concerns as possible in
\n     different lines  of business  for the purpose of fixing
\n     wage  scales  and\tdearness  allowance.  The  principle
\n     therefore which  emerges from  these two  decisions  in
\n     that in  applying the  industry-cum-region formula\t for
\n     fixing wage  scales the  tribunal should  lay stress on
\n     the industry  part of  formula if\tthere  are  a  large
\n     number of\tconcerns in  the same region carrying on the
\n     same industry;  in such a case in order that production
\n     cost  may\tnot  be\t unequal  and  there  may  be  equal
\n     competition, wages\t should generally  be fixed  on\t the
\n     basis of  the comparable industries, namely, industries
\n     of the same kind. But where the number of industries of
\n     the same  kind in\ta particular  region is small, it is
\n     the region\t part  of  the\tindustry-cum-region  formula
\n     which assumes  importance particularly  in the  case of
\n     clerical and  subordinate staff,  for as pointed out in
\n     the French\t Motor Car  Company case  there is  not much
\n     difference in  the work  of this  class of employees in
\n     different industries.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In French\tMotor Car  Co. v. Their workmen, an argument
\nwas advanced  that the\tappellant  company  was\t paying\t the
\nhighest wage  scales in\t a particular  line of\tbusiness  in
\nwhich  it   was\t engaged   and\tthere\twas,  therefore,  no
\njustification for increasing the wage scales
\n265<\/span>
\nby comparison  with wage  scales in other lines of business.
\nThis argument was rejected with the following observations:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We are  of opinion  that this  argument cannot be
\n     accepted, for  it would  then mean that if a concern is
\n     paying the\t highest  wages\t in  a\tparticular  line  of
\n     business, there  can be  no increase  in wages  in that
\n     concern  whatever\t may  be   the\teconomic  conditions
\n     prevailing at  the time  of dispute.  It seems  to\t us,
\n     therefore, that  where a  concern is paying the highest
\n     wages in a particular line of business, there should be
\n     greater emphasis  on the  region part  of the industry-
\n     cum-region principle,  though it  would be\t the duty of
\n     the industrial  court  to\tsee  that  for\tpurposes  of
\n     comparison such  other industries\tin  the\t region\t are
\n     taken into\t account as  are as  nearly similar  to\t the
\n     concern before  it as possible. Though, therefore, in a
\n     case where\t a particular  concern is already paying the
\n     highest  wages   in  its  own  line  of  business,\t the
\n     industrial courts\twould be  justified  in\t looking  at
\n     wages paid\t in that  region in other lines of business,
\n     it should take care to see that the concerns from other
\n     lines of business taken into account are such as are as
\n     nearly similar  as possible,  to the  line of  business
\n     carried on by the concern before it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Workmen\t of Orient  Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orient Paper
\nMills Ltd,<\/a>  this Court\trelying\t on  the  French  Motor\t Car
\nCompany case  held that\t where two other paper industries in
\nthe region  are of  recent origin  and\ttheir  profits\twere
\nsmaller, it  was the  duty of the Industrial Tribunal not to
\ncompare the  appellant-company with  those companies, but to
\ncompare the  same with other industries in the region, three
\nof which  were collieries,  two cement companies, on a steel
\nplant and one aluminium factory.\n<\/p>\n
     These decisions  make it  clear that where there are no
\ncomparable industries  in the region, the regional aspect of
\nthe region-cum-industry\t formula must  be given\t precedence.
\nThat was  what was  done  in  the  Dunlop  Rubber  Co.,\t the
\nImperial Chemical  Industries and  the Burmah  Shell oil Co.
\ncases. Rightly,\t therefore, the\t Tribunal did  not rest\t its
\nconclusion on this factor.\n<\/p>\n
266<\/span><\/p>\n
     Shri Pai  informed us  that even  in the  case  of\t the
\nclerical staff of the Marketing Division, there is no longer
\nany  pension   scheme  for   those  that   have\t joined\t the
\nCorporation after nationalisation. This again was not one of
\nthe grounds  on which the Tribunal rested its conclusion and
\nwe wish\t to say\t no more  about it,  as we  do not  want  to
\njeopardise any claim that the workmen may have on that basis
\nor any answer that the Management may have in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the appeal is allowed and the retirement
\nage of\tthe clerical  staff of\tthe Refinery Division of the
\ncompany is  fixed at  60 years, There will be no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
     VARADARAJAN,  J.\tThis  appeal  by  special  leave  is
\ndirected against  the  award  dated  1.7.1980  made  by\t the
\nIndustrial Tribunal,  Bombay in I. T. No. 84 of 1980 raising
\nthe age\t of retirement\tof the\tclerical  employees  of\t the
\nRefineries Division  of the  respondent from  55 years to 58
\nyears in  so far  as it rejected the claim of the appellants
\nto the age of retirement being raised to 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
     The dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay
\nwas between the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bombay
\n(for short  “Company”) and  their Workmen represented by the
\nBurmah Shell  Refineries Clerical  Staff  Union\t (for  short
\n“first union”)\tand the Petroleum Workmen’s Union (for short
\n“second union”).  The Company has a marketing division and a
\nrefinery division  at Bombay.  The age\tof retirement of the
\nclerical employees  of\tthe  Company  is  58  years  in\t the
\nmarketing division  and 55  years in  the refinery division.
\nThe question  for consideration\t by the Tribunal was whether
\nthe age\t of retirement\tof the\tclerical  employees  of\t the
\nCompany’s refinery  division should  be raised\tto 60  years
\nfrom 55\t years. The retirement age of the clerical employees
\nof the\trefinery division  had been  fixed at  55 years by a
\nsettlement dated  31.10.1973 which  was to be in force for a
\nperiod of  four years  and thereafter until it is terminated
\nin accordance  with the\t provisions  of\t s.19(2)  of  a\t the
\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, 1947.\t The period  of\t four  years
\nfixed in that settlement expired on 31.10.1977 and the first
\nunion terminated  that settlement in so far as it related to
\nthe age\t of retirement\tof the\tclerical  employees  of\t the
\nrefinery division  by a notice dated 6.4.1979 after making a
\ndemand by  a notice  dated 15.1.1979 on the Company to raise
\nthe age\t of retirement\tof these  clerical employees  to  60
\nyears. The  first union’s  contention according to its claim
\nstatement was that the model standing orders provide for the
\nage of\tretirement of  the clerical employees being 60 years
\nand there is a
\n267<\/span>
\ntrend in  the Bombay  region to fix the age of retirement of
\nclerical  employees  at\t 60  years  and\t in  the  comparable
\nconcerns as well as in the marketing division of the Company
\nitself the  age of  retirement of  the clerical employees is
\nabove 55 years and, therefore, the present age of retirement
\nof the\tclerical employees  of the  refinery division is low
\nand should  be raised  from 55 years to 60 years with effect
\nfrom the date of the reference. The second union put forward
\nalmost similar\tgrounds in  its\t claim\tstatement  filed  in
\nsupport of  the demand\tof the\tclerical  employees  of\t the
\nrefinery division.\n<\/p>\n
     The Company denied in its statement of defence that the
\nmodel standing\torders\tframed\tby  the\t Central  Government
\nprovide for  the  age  of  retirement  being  60  years\t and
\ncontended that the settlement dated 31.10.1973 was a package
\ndeal arrived at in consideration of the union agreeing inter
\nalia to\t the age  of retirement\t being fixed at 55 years and
\nthe Company  revised certain  benefits which  would not have
\nbeen revised otherwise. The Company disputed the correctness
\nof the grounds relied upon by the unions in support of their
\nclaim for  raising the\tage of\tretirement of  the  clerical
\nemployees of the refinery division to 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
     The Tribunal rejected the Company’s contention that the
\nreference itself  is not  competent  in\t view  of  the\tsaid
\nsettlement  dated   31.10.1973\tas   being  untenable.\tThat
\nquestion is not in dispute in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The parties filed a joint statement before the Tribunal
\nsaying that  they do  not want\tto let in any oral evidence.
\nThe Company  and the  first union  produced their respective
\ncomparative  statements.  In  addition\tto  the\t comparative
\nstatement, strong  reliance was placed by the unions on what
\nis called  the trend  in the Bombay region to fix the age of
\nretirement at  60 years. The Company’s comparative statement
\nshowed that  on 1.4.1980  there were  148 clerical employees
\nand 1095  non-clerical employees in the Company and provided
\ninformation in regard to wage scales and other benefits such
\nas provident  fund and gratuity and admitted that the age of
\nretirement  of\tthe  clerical  employees  in  the  Company’s
\nmarketing division  at Bombay  is 58 years while that of the
\nclerical employees  of the  Company’s refinery\tdivision  at
\nthat place  is only  55 years.\tIt  was\t contended  for\t the
\nCompany before\tthe Tribunal  that the\twage scales  of\t the
\nclerical employees  covered by this reference are far better
\nthan those of similar categories of employees in comparable
\n268<\/span>
\nconcerns and  that the\tCompany took  a generous view in the
\nsettlement dated  31.10.1973 and  arrived at  a package deal
\nand revised  the  benefits  of\tthe  employees\ttaking\tinto
\nconsideration the agreement of the employees to continue the
\nage of\tretirement of the clerical employees of the refinery
\ndivision at 55 years. The Tribunal found that the contention
\nregarding the settlement being a package deal in regard even
\nto the\tage of\tretirement after  taking other benefits into
\nconsideration was not without substance and observed that it
\nis, however,  not sufficient  to reject\t the demand  of\t the
\nclerical employees  of the refinery division for raising the
\nage of\tretirement in  toto and that it has to be taken into
\naccount while  considering the\textent to  which the  age of
\nretirement should be raised.\n<\/p>\n
     The following  observation made  by this Court in Guest
\nKeen Williams  Private\tLtd.  v.  Sterling  and\t others<\/a>\t was
\nnoticed by the Tribunal:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In  fixing\tthe  age   of\tsuperannuation\t the
\n     Industrial Tribunals  have to take into account several
\n     relevant  factor.\tWhat  is  the  nature  of  the\twork
\n     assigned to  the  employees  in  the  course  of  their
\n     employment ?  What is  the nature of the wage structure
\n     paid to  them ?  What are\tthe retirement\tbenefits and
\n     other  amenities  available  to  them  ?  What  is\t the
\n     character of  the climate\twhere the employees work and
\n     what is  the age  of superannuation fixed in comparable
\n     industries in  the same  region ? What is generally the
\n     practice prevailing  in the industry in the past in the
\n     matter of\tretiring its  employees ?  These  and  other
\n     relevant facts  have to  be weighed  by the tribunal in
\n     every case,  when it  is called  upon to  fix an age of
\n     superannuation in an industrial dispute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Tribunal  noticed also\t the  following\t observation
\nmade in a later decision of this Court in the case of Burmah
\nShell (Delhi Region):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In fixing  the age  of  superannuation  the\tmost
\n     important\tfactor\t that\thas   to   be\ttaken\tinto
\n     consideration is  the trend  in a particular area. That
\n     position is made
\n269<\/span>
\n     clear by  this Court. There is no denying the fact that
\n     life expectation  has greatly increased in recent years
\n     due to  healthier living  conditions, better  food\t and
\n     improved medical facilities though we have still a long
\n     way to  go in  that regard.  Under\t modern\t conditions,
\n     speaking generally,  the efficiency  of workmen  is not
\n     impaired till  about 60  years. The  needs of a workman
\n     are likely\t to be\tgreater between the age of 50 and 60
\n     years, as\tduring that  period, he\t has to\t educate his
\n     children,\tmarry\this  daughters,\t  in   addition\t  to
\n     maintaining his family. If one looks at the word trend,
\n     it\t is  obvious  that  the\t age  of  superannuation  is
\n     gradually pushed up.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  Tribunal  commented  upon  the  lack\tof  evidence
\nrelating to  the various  factors  indicated  in  the  above
\npassage in  the present case and has arrived at its decision
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The only  material placed  before me\t pertains to
\n     the wage  scales in  existence in the industries in the
\n     region and\t more so  comparable  industries.  The\twage
\n     scales of\tthe Company  and those\tof other  comparable
\n     concerns do  not show  that  the  wage  scales  of\t the
\n     Company are much better. Similarly, it is apparent that
\n     the Company  has fixed  the age  of retirement  of\t the
\n     clerical staff  in\t its  Marketing\t Division,  both  in
\n     Bombay and\t other places  58 years.  I do\tnot find any
\n     valid reason why the concerned workmen should be denied
\n     a raise  in the age of their retirement at least to the
\n     extent of\t58 years.  I have  already observed that the
\n     concerned\tworkmen\t  have\tbeen   granted\tbenefits  of
\n     retirement by  way of provident fund and gratuity under
\n     the Settlement.  It is  also to  be borne\tin mind that
\n     there  are\t about\t1095  workmen  in  the\tnon-clerical
\n     category. They  may also  raise  a\t dispute  about\t the
\n     revision of  their retirement  age. Here, neither party
\n     has placed\t on the\t record\t the  extent  of  additional
\n     financial burden  consequent  upon\t the  grant  of\t the
\n     demand in terms it is made. To keep harmony amongst the
\n     workmen  of  the  Company\temployed  in  its  Marketing
\n     Division and Refinery, it is proper to raise the age of
\n     retirement of  the concerned  workmen to  58 years, and
\n     not to  60 years  in  terms  of  the  demand.  For\t the
\n     aforesaid\treasons,   the\tage  of\t retirement  of\t the
\n     clerical staff is fixed at 58 years.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
270<\/span><\/p>\n
     Unfortunately, very  limited material  is available  on
\nrecord for  arriving at\t a decision in this case. Before the
\nTribunal comparative  statements regarding  the wage  scales
\nand other  benefits such  as gratuity and provident fund and
\nage of retirement were produced by the Company and the first
\nunion and  the unions  relied upon  the trend  in the Bombay
\nregion to  fix the  age of  retirement of  employees  at  60
\nyears. In  this Court  Mr. M.K.\t Ramamurthi, Senior  Counsel
\nappearing for  the appellants invited this Court’s attention
\nto and\theavily relied\tupon some decisions of this Court in
\nwhich that trend has been noticed. The Tribunal also noticed
\nthe decision  of this  Court  in  the  Burmah  Shell  (Delhi
\nregion’s) case (supra) in which also reference has been made
\nto the\ttrend as  seen from  the passage  in  that  judgment
\nextracted earlier.  . Mr. G.B. Pai, Senior Counsel appearing
\nfor the\t Company admitted before this Court as had been done
\neven before the Tribunal that there is no pension scheme for
\nthe clerical  employees of  the\t refinery  division  of\t the
\nCompany with  whom we  are concerned  in this  case. He also
\nadmitted that  there  is  a  pension  scheme  in  regard  to
\nclerical employees  of the  Company’s marketing\t division at
\nBombay. But  he submitted  that scheme is restricted to only
\nemployees  who\t had  joined  service  before  the  date  of
\nnationalisation of  the oil companies and does not relate to
\nthose who  joined service after that date. The fact that the
\npension scheme relating to the marketing division applies to
\nonly employees\twho had joined service in the Company before
\nthe  date   of\tnationalisation\t  is  not  disputed  by\t Mr.
\nRamamurthi. It is true that the Tribunal has not noticed the
\nfact that  there is  such a  pension scheme  for some of the
\nCompany’s employees in the marketing division at Bombay. Mr.
\nPai drew  this Court’s\tattention to  comparative statements
\nproduced by  the Company  as exhibits  ‘A’ and\t‘B’ with the
\ncounter-affidavit filed\t in the\t special leave\tpetition  in
\nthis Court.  They are referred to in paras 15 and 17 of that
\ncounter-affidavit. No  objection was raised by Mr Ramamurthi
\nto  Mr.\t  Pai  drawing\t this  Court’s\tattention  to  those
\ncomparative statements.\t One of\t those statements  shows the
\nsalaries of  junior and senior clerical employees in all the
\noil companies  (corporations) in  this country.\t It is\tseen
\nfrom that  statement that  there are  four oil\tcompanies in
\nthis  country,\t namely,  Hindustan   Petroleum\t Corporation
\nLimited.(Caltex), Indian  Oil Corporation Limited, Hindustan
\nPetroleum   Corporation\t  Limited   and\t  Bharat   Petroleum
\nCorporation Limited.  The  pay\tscales\tof  junior  clerical
\nemployees of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited are
\nRs. 890.50-Rs.\t1498.50 in  the marketing  division and\t Rs.
\n995.25- Rs.  1348.60 in\t the refinery division. Those scales
\ncompare favourably with the pay scales of similar employees
\n271<\/span>
\nin the\tHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (Caltex) and
\nIndian oil Corporation Limited. But the pay scales of junior
\ngrade clerical\temployees of  the respondent  company Bharat
\nPetroleum Corporation  Limited are  better in  the  refinery
\ndivision with  which we\t are concerned\tin this\t appeal then
\nthose in  the Hindustan\t Petroleum Corporation\tLimited, for
\nthe pay\t scales in the respondent Company are Rs. 924.23-Rs.
\n1597.17 in  the marketing  division as\ton 1.3.1980  and Rs.
\n1093.92-Rs. 1809.96 in the refinery division at Bombay as on
\n1.4.1980. In  the comparative statement there is a note that
\nthe grade  of Rs.1093.92-Rs.  1809.96 is the lowest grade in
\nthe clerical cadre as per the subsisting settlement and that
\nindividuals have,  however, not\t yet been  fitted that grade
\nbecause of various disputes. There can be no doubt that once
\nthe individuals\t are fitted  in\t that  grade  they  will  be
\nentitled  to   payment\taccording  to  that  scale  as\tfrom
\n1.4.1980. So  far as  senior grade  clerical  employees\t are
\nconcerned the  scales of  pay are  Rs. 1012.50-Rs.1727.50 in
\nthe marketing  division and  Rs.1359.56- Rs.  2040.20 in the
\nrefinery division  of the  Hindustan  petroleum\t Corporation
\nLimited and Rs. 1215 – Rs. 220 in the marketing division and
\nRs. 1212  .(for those who joined service after 8.8.1978- Rs.
\n2126 (for those who joined service prior to 8.8.1978). These
\nscales of  pay compare\tfavourably with the scales of pay in
\nthe Indian  oil Corporation Limited. But the sales of pay of
\nthe respondent\tcompany are  much better  as  they  are\t Rs.
\n1171.91-Rs. 1960.59 in the marketing division as on 1.3.1980
\nand Rs.\t 1352.30 -Rs.  2510.46 in  the refinery\t division at
\nBombay has  on 1.4.1980. Thus it is seen that the pay scales
\nof junior grade clerical employees and senior grade clerical
\nemployees of the Company in the refinery division at Bombay,
\nnamely, Rs.  1093.92 Rs.  1809.96 as  on  1.3.1980  and\t Rs.
\n1352.30-Rs. 2510.46  as on  1.4.1980 compare favourably with
\nthe pay\t scales of  junior grade  clerical employees  in the
\nmarketing division  of the  Company at\tBombay, namely,\t Rs.
\n924.23-Rs.  1597.17   and  Rs.\t1171.91-Rs.  1960.59  as  on
\n1.3.1980 respectively.\tTherefore, the\tCompany’s contention
\nbefore the  Tribunal that  higher pay  scales were fixed for
\nthe clerical employees in the refinery division at Bombay in
\nthe settlement\tdated 31.10.1973  in view of their agreement
\nto continue the age of retirement at 55 years is not without
\nsubstance as stated by the Tribunal in its judgment. In this
\nCourt also  Mr. Pai  submitted that  higher pay\t scales have
\nbeen fixed  for\t the  clerical\temployees  in  the  refinery
\ndivision of  the Company at Bombay taking into consideration
\nthat there is no pension scheme for them and their agreement
\nto  continue  the  age\tof  retirement\tas  58\twhereas\t the
\nretirement age\tfor the\t clerical employees of the marketing
\ndivision at Bombay for
\n272<\/span>
\nwhom there  is a  pension scheme  in  regard  to  those\t who
\nentered service\t prior to the date of nationalisation is 58.
\nThe learned  counsel fairly  conceded that  it could  not be
\nstated with  certainty that the difference in the pay scales
\nof the\tclerical employees  in\tthe  refinery  division\t and
\nmarketing division at Bombay fully takes care of the absence
\nof a  pension scheme  for  the\tclerical  employees  of\t the
\nrefinery division.  It was  not contended  by Mr. Ramamurthi
\nthat the  workload of the clerical employees in the refinery
\ndivision is  greater than  that of the clerical employees in
\nthe marketing  division of the Company at Bombay. Therefore,
\nin considering\tthe absence  of a  pension  scheme  for\t the
\nclerical employees  of the  Company in the refinery division
\none has\t to take  note of  the fact  that the  pay scales of
\nthose employees are more advantageous and compare favourably
\nwith the  pay scales of clerical employees of the Company in
\nthe marketing division at Bombay.\n<\/p>\n
     The trend strongly relied upon by Mr. Ramamurthi has no
\ndoubt to  be taken  into  account  for\tfixing\tthe  age  of
\nretirement of  the employees.  But according to the decision
\nin Burmah  shell (Delhi\t region) case  (supra)\treferred  to
\nabove, it  is only one of the factors which have to be taken
\ninto account  in fixing the age of retirement though in that
\ndecision it has been stated to be the most important factor,
\n(Several  other\t factors)  are\tmentioned  in  this  Court’s
\njudgment in  Guest Keen Williams Private Limited v. Sterling
\nand others<\/a>  (supra) and they are the nature of work assigned
\nto the\temployees, the\twage structure of the employees, the
\nretirement benefit  and other  amenities  available  to\t the
\nemployees, the\tnature of  climate where  the employees work
\nand the age of superannuation fixed in comparable industries
\nin the region. The employees in this case should have placed
\nthe other  materials also before the Tribunal for justifying
\ntheir claim  for raising the age of retirement from 55 years
\nto 60  years. They  have not  placed any  of  those  factors
\nbefore the  Tribunal  apart  from  relying  upon  the  trend
\nmentioned  above.   The\t trend\t must,\tundoubtedly,  be  in
\ncomparable industries.\tThe employees  in this case have not
\nplaced any  material on\t record to  show that  there is\t any
\ntrend in  the refinery\tdivision of any other oil company in
\nthe Bombay  region to  fix the age of retirement of clerical
\nemployees at  60 years.\t They have  relied  upon  the  trend
\ngenerally and  not in  any comparable  industry. There is no
\nevidence to  show that\tthere is  any other  refinery in the
\nBombay region  than that  of the company. On the other hand,
\nthe Company  has placed\t before\t this  Court  a\t comparative
\nstatement  regarding  the  age\tof  retirement\tof  clerical
\nemployees in  all  the\trefineries  in\tthis  country.\tThat
\nstatement produced with
\n273<\/span>
\nthe counter-affidavit  filed in\t the Special  Leave Petition
\nshows that  the age  of retirement  is 60  years only in the
\nmarketing division  of the  Indian oil\tCorporation Limited,
\nthat it\t is 58\tyears  in  the\trefinery  division  of\tthat
\nCorporation and that in all the other Corporations including
\nthe respondent\tCompany after  the  age\t of  retirement\t was
\nraised to  58 years  from 55  years by the Tribunal it is 58
\nyears both  in\tthe  marketing\tdivision  and  the  refinery
\ndivision. Thus,\t the trend  in the refinery divisions of the
\nCorporation throughout\tthe country  is to  fix the  age  of
\nretirement of  the clerical employees at 58 years. It is not
\npossible to  accept the\t appellants’ contention that the age
\nof retirement  should have been raised by the Tribunal to 60
\nyears on  the basis  solely of\tthe  “trend  in\t the  Bombay
\nregion”. There\tis nothing  in the  award of the Tribunal to
\nshow that  the employees contended before it that the “trend
\nin the\tBombay region” heavily relied upon by them, could be
\ngeneral in  nature and\tnot in\tcomparable industries in the
\nregion.’ No such argument was advanced even in this Court by
\nMr. Ramamurthi,\t on behalf  of the  appellants. Consequently
\nthe Company did not have any opportunity of meeting any such
\ncontention that\t the trend  in the  region need\t not  be  in
\ncomparable industries  (not necessarily\t similar industries)
\nbut may\t be general and is yet binding on the Company. It is
\nsignificant to\tnote that  the\tclerical  employees  in\t the
\nmarketing division  of the  Company at\tBombay have till now
\nnot raised any demand for raising their age of retirement to
\n60 years  from 58 years. Therefore, on the question of trend
\nalso it is seen that the employees concerned have not placed
\nany material  on record to hold that in their case the trend
\nshould\tbe   taken  as\tbeing  towards\tfixing\tthe  age  of
\nretirement at  60 years.  The Tribunal has taken all factors
\ninto consideration including the absence of a pension scheme
\nfor the\t employees in question except the fact that there is
\na pension scheme for the clerical employees in the marketing
\ndivision of  the Company  at Bombay  who had  joined service
\nprior to  the date  of nationalisation in raising the age of
\nretirement  of\tthe  Company’s\tclerical  employees  in\t the
\nrefinery division at Bombay to 58 years from 55 years at par
\nwith the  age of retirement of the clerical employees in the
\nCompany’s marketing  division  at  Bombay.  Even  under\t the
\nTribunal’s award  challenged in\t this appeal  the  employees
\nconcerned are  better placed than their counter-parts in the
\nmarketing division who have joined service after the date of
\nnationalisation of  oil companies  in regard to wage scales.
\nThere is  no material  on record  to  show  the\t quantum  of
\ndisadvantage  to   which  the\temployees  in  question\t are
\nsubjected by  the absence  of a pension scheme compared with
\nthe section of clerical employees of the Company’s marketing
\ndivision at Bombay
\n274<\/span>
\nwho have  the benefit  of a  pension scheme  in addition  to
\ngratuity and  provident fund  benefits to  which  alone\t the
\nemployees  concerned   in  this\t  appeal  are\tentitled  as
\nretirement benefits.  In these\tcircumstances, there  is  no
\nsatisfactory reason  for  interfering  with  the  Tribunal’s
\naward  raising\t the  age  of  retirement  of  the  clerical
\nemployees of  the Company’s refinery division at Bombay from
\n55 years  to 58\t years at  par with the age of retirement of
\nthe clerical  employees of  the Company’s marketing division
\nat Bombay  and declining to raise it to 60 years as demanded
\nby the\temployees.  The\t appeal\t accordingly  fails  and  is
\ndismissed but without costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n275<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 356, 1984 SCR (1) 251 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: WORKMEN OF THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (REFININGDI Vs. RESPONDENT: BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153348","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nWorkmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\"},\"wordCount\":8027,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\",\"name\":\"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983","datePublished":"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983"},"wordCount":8027,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983","name":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum ... vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 6 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-26T00:33:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/workmen-of-the-bharat-petroleum-vs-bharat-petroleum-corporation-on-6-october-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Workmen Of The Bharat Petroleum … vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation … on 6 October, 1983"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153348","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153348"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153348\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153348"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153348"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153348"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}