Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Partition Suit As Cause Of Action Is Recurring; Second Rejection Of Plaint Application Barred By Res Judicata: Telangana High Court Married Daughter Entitled To Appointment As Fair Price Shop Dealer On Compassionate Grounds; Marital Status No Bar: Allahabad High Court Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court Conviction Not A Condition Precedent For Confiscation Of Vehicle Used In Forest Offence: Bombay High Court Advocate’s Professional Call To Client No Proof Of Conspiracy; Sterling Evidence Like CCTV Can Justify Quashing FIR: Gujarat High Court Revenue Entries Changed Without Notifying Affected Parties Are Void; High Court Can Upset Perverse Findings In Second Appeal: Himachal Pradesh HC Mandatory Injunction For Removing Sunshades Or Closing Windows Cannot Be Granted If No Encroachment Is Proved: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Resume Work Through Third Parties Until 30-Day Period For Contractor’s Post-Termination Compliance Expires: Madras High Court Circumstantial Chain Fails If Prosecution Doesn't Rule Out Accidental Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Wife’s Status As Practicing Lawyer Or Professional Qualification No Absolute Bar To Grant Of Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court Legally Wedded Wife And Second Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Family Pension If Second Wife Was Nominated & Cared For Deceased: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Suit Filed At The Fag End Of Limitation Reflects Lack Of Readiness And Willingness: Supreme Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Prove Financial Readiness At Relevant Time Of Transaction: Supreme Court MACT |Just Compensation For Deceased Professional Students Must Reflect Future Career Trajectory: Supreme Court Stationary Vehicle Parked At Night Without Warning Signs Poses Evident Hazard; SC Refuses To Reduce Compensation For CA Student’s Death Motor Accident Claims: 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Considered If Amputation Prevents Manual Worker From Pursuing Sole Avocation: Supreme Court Substantive Amendments Rendering Land Transfers 'Void' Are Prospective; Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Sale Deeds: Supreme Court Registered Sale Deed Carries Formidable Presumption Of Genuineness; Minor Witness Discrepancies Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Document: Supreme Court Mere Breach Of Sale Agreement Not Cheating Unless Dishonest Intent Existed From Inception: Telangana High Court Mining Lease Applications For First Schedule Minerals Deemed 'Disposed Of' Once Recommended & Approved Prior To 2015: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration Under NDPS Act Militates Against Article 21; Conditional Liberty Must Override Section 37 Embargo: Supreme Court Perpetual Minor Status Of Deity Does Not Exempt It From Limitation Laws; Condonation Requires 'Sufficient Cause': Orissa High Court State Cannot 'Approbate And Reprobate' Bravery: MP High Court Mandates Out-Of-Turn Promotion For Cop Who Rescued Truck From 200-Foot Gorge Drugs Controller Can Regulate Misleading Discount Boards In Medical Shops; Right To Business Not A Shield For Deception: Kerala High Court Courts Cannot Direct Parliament To Adopt Rotational Reservation For Assembly Seats; Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act Valid: Allahabad High Court Official To Pay Rs 20,000 Costs From Own Pocket: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Municipal Commissioner Liable For Failing To Take Court Orders To 'Logical End' IPC Sections 406 & 420 Cannot Co-exist On Same Set Of Facts; Substantial Compliance Enough For Section 156(3) CrPC Affidavit: Kerala High Court Family Courts Duty-Bound To Declare Marital Status In Mutual Consent Muslim Divorces Even If Wife Admits Divorce: Gujarat High Court Allottee’s Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Under Section 18 RERA Is Absolute; Not Fettered By Section 55 Contract Act: Bombay High Court Sentencing Not A Purely Retributive Exercise Divorced From Factual Matrix: Supreme Court Reduces Jail Term Of Man Who Forged Bail Documents

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