Dismissed

Sri P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal v. Kennametal India Ltd.

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/40213/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employee challenged his retirement at age 58 under the pre-amendment standing order, relying on a certified order raising retirement age to 60. The court held that under Section 7(2) of the Standing Orders Act, the amendment took effect only seven days after the appellate authority's copies were sent, i.e., 07.11.2011, after his retirement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5746 WP No. 40213 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 40213 OF 2012 (L-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. P.S. SURENDRA ITHAL @ PSS ITHAL, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1138, 11TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, BEHIND SHARAVATHI HOSPITAL, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

KENNAMETAL INDIA LTD., NO. 8/9TH MILE, TUMKUR ROAD, Digitally signed by BANGALORE, MAHALAKSHMI B M REPRESENTED BY ITS Location: HIGH COURT OF VICE PRESIDENT-MANUFACTURING KARNATAKA & FACTORY MANAGER, MR. SARATHY D.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (V.C.))

¶13

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED:1.09.2011, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT IN NIL, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:5746 WP No. 40213 of 2012

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner assails the order relieving the petitioner from service on 30.09.2011 at the age of 58 years, contrary to the amended Clause 22 of the Standing Orders dated 26.08.2011.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath and learned counsel for the respondent Sri. Somashekar.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶21

as per Clause 22 of the Standing Orders, the age of retirement is 60 years and reference is placed to the order dated 18.04.2012 in WP No.48773/2011 pertaining to one Ramamurthy, who has been granted the benefit of 60 years.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Company would submit that petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011, when

¶23

the appeal of the respondent was pending before the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5746 WP No. 40213 of 2012

¶25

appellate authority and therefore, the age of retirement of 60 years is applicable to those employees who retired from

¶26

the respondent/Company on or after 07.11.2011.

¶27

The facts reveal that the order of the Deputy Labour

¶28

Commissioner dated 26.08.2011 amended Clause 22 of the Standing Orders and increased the age of the employees as 60 years, was assailed before the Labour Commissioner, by the respondent-Company, who affirmed

¶29

the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 29.10.2011. Section 7(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 reads as under:

¶30

7. Date of operation of standing orders.--

¶31

X X X

¶32

[(2)] 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 thereof are sent under subsection (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."

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:5746 WP No. 40213 of 2012

¶35

As per Section 7(2) of the Act, the appellate authority order, i.e., the Standing Order comes into effect seven days from the date of which the copies of the order of the Appellate Authority was sent under sub-section(2) of Section 6 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on 20.10.2011, and the appellate authority order was sent on 30.10.2011 and as per Section 7(2) of the Act, the Standing Order shall be effective, on the expiry of seven days from the date on which the copies of the order of the appellate authority was sent under sub-section (2) of Section 6 that is, with effect from 07.11.2011. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011, when the appeal of the respondent-Company was pending before the appellate authority, and in light of Section 7(2) of the Act, the age of retirement of 60 years is applicable to the employees, who retired from the company on or after 07.11.2011, in light of the appeal preferred by the respondent-Company.

¶36

The reference made by the petitioner to the order dated 18.04.2011 in W.P.No.48773/2011 is pertaining to

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5746 WP No. 40213 of 2012

¶38

the age of retirement as on 31.12.2011 of the said Rama Murthy and since the order of the appellate authority has come into force w.e.f. 07.11.2011, the benefit of 60 years was given to the said Ramamurthy and the said decision is not applicable to the present petition.

¶39

In light of the petitioner having retired on 30.09.2011 and the order of the appellate authority has been passed on 29.10.2011, the same would come into force from 07.11.2011 as per Section 7(2) of the Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the petition and accordingly, the writ petition is

¶40

dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SNN

Sri P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal v. Kennametal India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri P S Surendra Ithal @ Pss Ithal v. Kennametal India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank Vs the Appellate Authority

Sri a S Eshwarappa Vs the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

H Bhagwandas Vs K P T C L

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Malurappa

M/S Gravure Cylinder Colour Process System Vs Engineering & General Workers Union

Bangalore Metrolpolitian Transport Corporation Vs Lakshmipathi