Two Samyukta Karnataka Employees Lose Claims To Two More Years’ Service As 60-Year Retirement Age Was Certified Only After They Retired: Karnataka HC

Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulkarni were employed by the Management and retired at age 58 on 31 July 2019 and 30 April 2019, respectively.

A Karnataka amendment to the Model Standing Orders, effective 27 March 2017, raised the retirement age from 58 to 60.

The employees sought amendment of the Management’s Certified Standing Orders, but those Orders were amended only by an order effective from 21 December 2019, after both employees had retired.

The Labour Court held their retirement unlawful, directed reinstatement until age 60, and awarded 50% back wages for the relevant periods.

The Management sought to quash those awards; the employees sought the remaining 50% of back wages.

The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 requires Standing Orders to be prepared and certified, and prescribes the procedures and dates for their operation and modification under Sections 3–7 and 10.

The State’s 27 March 2017 amendment to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961 substituted “60 years” for “58 years” in the Model Standing Orders, but did not, by itself, amend an employer’s Certified Standing Orders.

An amendment to Certified Standing Orders must follow the statutory process under Section 10; the Model Standing Order amendment alone does not automatically alter an establishment’s certified terms.

The Court followed the Division Bench decisions in Karnataka Employers Association v. State of Karnataka (W.A. Nos. 2304–2309/2018 and connected matters) and Management of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. General Secretary, Harihar Polyfibers (W.A. No. 100250/2021).

The State amendment raised the Model Standing Orders’ retirement age, but the Management’s Certified Standing Orders were not amended until 21 December 2019, after both employees had retired.

The employees’ applications and the Management’s alleged failure to act did not substitute for the statutory process or make the amendment effective earlier.

The Court also rejected reliance on Grasim Industries: the Management in that case had expressed willingness to consider an increase before the amendment application, a circumstance absent here.

The Labour Court therefore erred in treating the employees’ requests as sufficient to confer the benefit of the amended retirement age.

It allowed the Management’s writ petitions, quashed the Labour Court awards in Reference Nos. 5/2022 and 4/2022, and dismissed the employees’ writ petitions seeking additional back wages.