Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Cement Workers, Grants Full Back Wages to Wrongfully Retired Workmen

26 September 2024 4:22 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a decision rendered by Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, dismissed a writ appeal filed by UltraTech Cement Ltd. challenging the retirement age of 60 for its workers, as mandated by the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961. The Court held that the state law governing employment conditions, including retirement age, applied to the cement industry in Madhya Pradesh despite the company's arguments that the Central Government’s Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (CG Act) should govern the matter. The Court also granted full back wages to workers who were wrongfully retired at 58 instead of 60.

UltraTech Cement Ltd., through its unit Vikram Cement Works in Madhya Pradesh, challenged the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (M.P. Act), which had raised the retirement age for workers from 58 to 60 years. The company argued that as a cement manufacturer—a “controlled industry” under the Central Government—the company should be governed by the Central Government’s Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which allows for bipartite settlements that had fixed the retirement age at 58.

The dispute arose when workers challenged the company’s practice of retiring employees at 58, demanding the statutory increase in the retirement age to 60, as prescribed by the M.P. Act. The Industrial Court ruled in favor of the workers, and UltraTech Cement appealed the decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the Central or State Government’s law governed the conditions of employment, specifically the retirement age, for workers in the cement industry. UltraTech Cement argued that the Central Government had control over the cement industry and, therefore, its laws, including bipartite settlements, should override the M.P. Act. They also contended that a previously signed settlement with the workers’ union fixed the retirement age at 58.

The Court observed that while the Central Government does indeed control the cement industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, it had delegated certain powers to the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result, the M.P. Act applied to employment conditions in the state, including the retirement age of workers in the cement industry.

"The State Government has authority due to the delegation of powers by the Central Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the industries in Madhya Pradesh, including cement, are governed by the M.P. Act regarding employment conditions including retirement age." [Para 15]

Additionally, the Court rejected UltraTech’s reliance on the bipartite settlement, stating that statutory provisions that are more beneficial to the workers override collective settlements:

"The retirement age of 60 years under the M.P. Act is enforceable despite contrary settlement agreements." [Para 18]

Justice Vivek Rusia emphasized that the retirement age of 60 years, as mandated by the M.P. Act, applied to both mine and factory workers employed by UltraTech Cement’s Vikram Cement unit. The Court rejected the company's argument that its limestone mines and cement plant should be governed by different laws, stating:

"The M.P. Act applies uniformly to both mine and factory workers in this context." [Para 19]

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of back wages for workers who had been wrongfully retired at the age of 58. Initially, the Industrial Court had awarded only 50% of the back wages for the two years these workers would have continued working. However, the High Court increased this award, holding that since the workers were entitled to remain in employment until they reached 60, they deserved full back wages:

"Workmen entitled to 100% of two years' salary, and related writ petitions allowed." [Para 21]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed UltraTech Cement’s writ appeal and upheld the order of the Industrial Court, which set the retirement age at 60 years for cement workers under the M.P. Act. The Court further granted full back wages to the workers who were wrongfully retired at 58. This ruling reinforces the principle that statutory provisions providing greater benefits to workers take precedence over conflicting contractual agreements or settlements.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2024

UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and Other

Latest Legal News