- (1.) The dispute in this writ petition is about the age of superannuation of the petitioner, a Class III employee of the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad. The petitioner has challenged the order dated July 15, 2002, Annexure 1 to the writ petition by which he is being superannuated on completing 58 years of age. A mandamus has been commanding the respondents to continue him in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on November I, 1968 in the Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'. Before the petitioner entered service there was a settlement dated 22/02/1966 between the U.P. Bank Employees Union and the Bank in which apart from other items of settlement about service conditions including pay scale, provident fund etc., it was also agreed that the age of superannuation of the Bank's employees would be 60 years. This settlement was admittedly entered into otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceedings although it appears that reference of an industrial dispute about the conditions of service of the employees of several banks was then pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Later on an award known as the Joshi Award was given by he Industrial Tribunal on 25/06/1971. Its copy has been filed as Annexure 7 of writ petition. The age of superannuation for employees provided in this award is 58 years. The award, however, contains a condition in para 23 that the existing benefits being enjoyed by the employees before the award, would not be curtailed. If therefore it was found that the settlement dated 22/02/1966 was applicable to the petitioner and that he was getting any benefits before the Award he would be entitled to continue to get those benefits. These benefits, it was stated in the Award would be personal to such employees. Later the Co-operative Society Employees Service Regulations, 1975 were framed. Regulation 24 provides that the age of superannuation of an employee would be 58 years but if there was a contract between the co-operative society and the employee at the time of his appointment providing a different age of superannuation the contract would prevail. The petitioner claims that the settlement dated 22/02/1966 was such a contract within the meaning of Regulation 24. It is the effect of this settlement, therefore, which is the crucial point for determination in this writ petition.
(3.) It is not disputed that if the settlement dated 22/02/1966 were entered during the course of conciliation proceedings it would be binding upon the employer as well as upon all the workmen of the Bank even upon the workmen who were not parties to it. But it was not entered in the course of conciliation proceedings a fact about which there is no dispute. It was signed by the office bearers of the union with Bank Management. It is stated in the supplementary counter-affidavit a fact not denied in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit that after the settlement was entered into it was circulated for obtaining the signatures of the employees of the bank. The petitioner was neither a signatory to the settlement nor indeed was he then in the service of the bank. He joined the services of the Bank in 1968. The stand in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit is that when the appointment of the petitioner was made in the the year 1968 a proceeding book of the bank was filled which apart from pay scale contained an entry that the petitioner would superannuate at the age of 60 years. No specific description of the alleged proceedings book has been given nor any prayer for summoning any proceedings book was made. No such case about the entry in the proceedings book was taken in the writ petition nor is there any other material to show that there was such an entry and I am not inclined to place much reliance upon this averment coming at the stage of supplementary rejoinder affidavit to which the respondents had no opportunity to reply. It has however been also stated that the benefit of the other terms of the settlement which covered subjects like pay scale, allowances etc. was given to the petitioners which was proof of the fact that the settlement was acted upon qua the petitioner as well as and was therefore extended to him in its application. The effect of extending some benefits of an agreement to the workman who were not parties is no doubt an aspect which requires consideration but before adverting to this question it is necessary to refer to the provisions of law relating to settlements and their effect. Section 6-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for short referred to as 'U.P. Act' reads as under: "6-B. Settlement outside conciliation proceedings- (1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and a workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall except as provided in sub-section (4), be binding on the parties to the agreement: Provided that if the period for which a settlement shall remain in force has not been laid down in such settlement itself, it shall remain in force for one year from the date of its registration. (2) As soon as settlement referred to in the sub-section (1) has been arrived at, the parties to the settlement or any one of them may apply to the conciliation officer of the area concerned in the prescribed manner for registration of the settlement. (3) On receipt of application for registration under sub- section (2) the Conciliation Officer or an authority notified by the State Government in this behalf, either, (1) register the settlement in the prescribed manner, or (institution in question) refuse registration if it considers it to be inexpedient to do so on public grounds affecting social justice, or if the settlement has been brought about as a result of collusion, fraud or misrepresentation. (4) Where a settlement under sub-section (I) has been refused registration, it shall not be binding under this Act.";