Subject NOT available

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICES,', CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, DHANBAU

REF. NO. 67 OF 1968

PARTTES :

Employers in relation to Katras Choitodih Colliery

AND

Their workmen represented by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad.

Memorandum of Settlement

The parties aforesaid respectfully beg to submit as under: —

1. After negotiation between themselves the parties have amicably settled the dispute involved in the present Reference in terms hereinafter stated.

2. Without prejudice to their contentions in the matter, the employers have reinstated Shrl Rajpat Singh, the affected workman, in the service of the colliery from the 2nd April 1969 with continuity of his service. 3. The workman shall not be entitled to his back wages or any other emolu- ments for the period intervening between the date of his dismissal and the date of his reinstatement as aforesaid.

4. The said intervening period will be treated as leave without wages. 5. The workman concerned or the Union has no other claim against the Company.

6. The parties shall bear their own costs of these proceedings. 7. The parties pray that the Tribunal may be pleased to accept this settlement and give its award in terms thereof.

Doted Dhanbad the 18th July 1969. For Workmen.

For the Employers. (Sd.) Illegible, (Sd.) D. NAHSINGH, Advocate. For Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

[No. 2/78/68-LRIL]

ORDERS

New Delhi, the 29th, July 1969

S.O. 3175.—Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that an industrial •dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Wadegaon Manganese Mine of Messrs Patel and Patel Company, Nagpur and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, In exercise oJ! the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, (No. 2) Bombay, constituted under section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the termination of services of Shrl Ramchandra Nathuii Sirbhau, Foreman from the 1st February, 1969 without any notice under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

[No. 35/8/69-LR.IV.]' New Delhi, the 4th August J989

S.O. 3176.—Whereas the Central Government Is of opinion that an Industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Ghugus Colliery, Post Office Manikpur, District Chandrapur and their workmen In respect of the matters specified In the Schedule hereto annexed;

And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable to refer the said* dispute for adjudication;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers .conferred by section 7A and clause (d) of sub-sectm (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby constitutes an Industrial Tribunal with Shrl G- V. Dev, as Presiding Officer with headquarters at Nagpur, and refers the said dispute for adjudication to the said Industrial Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the management of Ghugus Colliery of Messrs Ballar- pur Colliery Company, JMagpur, in terminating the lien on the appoint- ment of Snri Dm gam Malleshu, Loader, with eilect lrom the 3rd April, 1969 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? [No. 3/4/60-LEJI.l

S.O. 3177.—Whereat, an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management oi rtewa Coalfields limited, Burhar end Amlai Collieries, Post Office DhanpUn, DisLuct Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) and their workmen represented by the Burhar CoJliery Mazdoor Sabha, Post Office Dhanpuri, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh);

And whereas the said employers and their workmen have by a written agree- ment, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), referred the said dispute to arbitration by the person specified therein, and a copy of the said arbitration agreement has been forwarded to the Central Government;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 10A.

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the said arbitration agreement, which was received by it on the 22ndL July, 1969.

!

Agreement

"FORM C"

(See Rule 7)

(Under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947)

BETWEEN

Names of the parties.—M/s. Kcwa Coalfields Limited, Burhar and Amlai Collieries Post Office Dhanpuri, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh),

AND

Their workmen represented by Burhar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Post Office

Dhanpuri, District Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh).

Representing Errvployer.—Shri J. C. Malhotra, Agent, Rewa Coalfields Ltd. Representing Workmen.—Shri Jagdish Singh, Secretary, Burhar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, Dhanpuri.

It Is hereby agreed between the parties to refer the following dispute to the- arbitration of Shri V- P- Pratap, Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Jabalpur under section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SPECIFIC MATTER IN DISPUTE

(i) Whether the action of the Agent, Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (Burhar and Anilal ColMerles), P.O. DhanpUri, Dlstt. Shahdol (MP.) In dismissing. Shri Amoli, Boiler Attendant With effect from 1st February, 1967 ifi Justified? If not, td what relief Is he entitled?'

(ii) Details of the parties to the dispute including the name and address of

the establishment or undertaking involved:

M/s. Rewa Coalfields t^td., P. O. Dhanpuri, Distt. 'Shahdol (M.P.)

AND

Burhar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, P. O. Dhanpuri, Distt. Sb.ab.dol (M.P.X

(jii) Name of the workn\,en in case he himself i$ involved in the dispvie or the name oj the Union, if any, representing the workman or workmen in question:

Burhar Collery Mazdoor Sabha, P. O- Dhanpurl, Distt Shahdol (M.P)

(iv) Total number of workmen employed in the undertaking:

4,200 (approx.)

(v) Estimated number of workmen affected, or likely to be affected by the dispute:

One.

We further agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on us.

The arbitrator shall make his award within a period ol three months or within Buch further time as is extended by mutual agreement between us in writing- In case the award is not made within the period aforementioned, the reference to arbitration shall stand automatically cancelled and we shall be free to negotiate for fresh arbitration.

Signature of the Parties:

Representing Employer: Representing Workmen:

(J. C. MALHOTRA)

(JAGDISH SINGH)

(M. P.)

Agent, Secretary, Rewa Coalfields Ltd., Burhar Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, P.O. Dhanpurl, Dlatt. Shahdol P. O- Dhanpurl, Dlstt. Shahdol (M.P.) Witnesses:—

(1) (Sd.) Illegible. (2) (Sd.) Illegible.

Place: Dhanpurl. Date: 24th May, 1969.

[No. 8/39/69-LRlLl

S-O. 3178.—Whereas an industrial dispute exists between the employers In relation to the management of Jamuna Colliery of National Coal Development Corporation Limited. Post Office Kotma, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh and their workmen represented by the Madhya Pradesh Koyala Mazdoor Panchayat, Post Office Kurasia Colliery, District Surguja, Madhya Pradesh;

And. whereas the said employers and the workmen have, by a written agree- taent, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10A of che Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). agreed to refer the said dispute to arbitration by the person specified therein, and a copy of the said arbitration agreement has been forwarded to the Central Government;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the said arbitration agreement, which was received by it on the 7th July, 1969.

FORM C

Agreement

(Under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047)

BEIWKKN

NAMB Of PAHTIE3:

Representing employers—Deputy Supdt. of Collieries & Agent, Jamuna Colliery, National Coal Development Corporation Limited. P.O Kotma, Ddst. Sahdol, M.P.

Representing Workman—Vice President, Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Pancliayfit, P.O. KutHSia Colliery, Dist. Surguja, M.P.

,It Is -hereby agreed between the parties to refer the following Induatrial dis- pute to the arbitration of S/Sri K. Ral, Chief Mining Engineer, National Cool

Development Corporation Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranch! and Sri I. B, Sanyal, Chief Personnel Officer, National Coal Development Corporation Limited, Dar- bhanga House, Ranchi:

(i) Specific matters in dispute—

(a) Whether the transfer of Sri K. P. Singh, Shot-flrer (gassy mine) was effected by the Management from Jamuna Colliery to Talcher (Orissa field) with a view to weakening the Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat at Jamuna Colliery,

(b) Whether Sri K. P. Singh's refusal to comply with the transfer orders was justified and whether Sri K. P. Singh la entitled to any relief for the period that he has remained unemployed as a result of his refusal to comply with the transfer order.

(c) What other consequential arrangements should be made on the basiu of the determination of the first two Issues.

(ii) Details of the parties to the dispute, including the name and address of the establishment or undertaking involved—

(a) Employer—Jamuna Colliery, National Coal Development Corpora- tion Limited, P.O, Kotma, Dist. Sahdol, M.P.

(b) For workman—Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat, P.O. Kurasia Colliery, Dist, Surguja, M.P.

(iii) Name of the Union, if any representing the workmen in question—

Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat.

(iv) Total number of workmen employed in the undertaking affected—

800 approx,

(v) Estimated number of workmen affected or likely to be affected by the

dispute—1.

|

We further agree that in case the Arbitrators are equally devlded in their opinion, they shall appoint another person as Umpire, whose award shall be binding on us.

The Arbitrators shall make their award within a period of 3 months, or within such further time as is extended by mutual agreement between us in writing. In case the award is not made within the period aforementioned, the reference to arbitration shall stand automatically cancelled and we shall be free to negotiate for fresh arbitration.

Dated, at Baikunthpur, this 28th day of May 1969.

(G. P. MALIK)

Deputy Supdt. of Colleries & Agent, Jamuna Colliery, N.C.D-C. Ltd.,

P.O. Kotma, Dist. Sahdol, M.P. (Representing Employer) Witnesses:

1. (R. S, MUHTHY)

Sr. G.P.O. (M.P.) NC.D.C. Ltd. Baikunthpur.

2. (R. L. DHAR)

Addl. L.W.O. Kurasia Colliery.

(HAHDEO SINGH), Vice President,

Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Panchayat P.O. Kurasia Colliery, Dist. Surguja, M.P.

(Representing workman).

[No. 8/54/09 LRII.I,

P. C. MISRA, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 26£h July 1969

S.O. 3179.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Indus- trial Tribunal, Calcutta in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Messrs Apolo Marine Syndicate, Calcutta and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 18th July, 1969.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA

REFERENCE NO. 33 OF 1969

PAH11E8 *

Employers in relation to Messrs Apolo Marine Syndicate, Calcutta,

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT:

Shrl B. N. Banerjee, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of Employers—Shrl C. L. Ganguly, Labour Adviser. On behalf of Workmen—Janab W. A. Azad, Joint Secretary of Calcutta Dock

Workers' Union.

STATE: West Bengal

INDUSTRY: Port & Dock

AWARD

By Ordre No. 28(7)/69-LWHII, dated April 7, 1969, the Government of India, In the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment), referred the following dispute between the employers in relation to Messrs Apolo Marine Syndicate, Calcutta and their workmen, to this Tribunal, for adjudication, namely:

"Whether the demand for payment of bonus for the cleaning gang workers working under Messrs Apolo Marine Syndicate. Calcutta for the fin- ancial years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966^67 and 1967-68 is justified and if so, at what rate and from what date?"

2. The workmen, represented by Calcutta Dock Workers' Union, filed a written •statement. That written statement is some-what prolix and Irrelevant- It starts with the history of rise In wages for Port and Dock Workers under the recommen- dations of the Central Wage Board, as accepted by the Government and as later on explained by different award of this Tribunal. In paragraph 11 of the written statement it is stated:

"That In the light of the said Award the daily rate of a casual worker of this port became Rs- 4-93. But Apolo Marine Syndicate Is paying R's. 3.50 to their cleaning gang workers- A cleaning gang worker under Apolo Marine Syndicate is paid only Rs. 3.50 or Rs. 4.00 per head per day Instead of Rs. 4.93 per head per shift-"

Having thus exhausted the history of rise In the wages, the written statement proceeds to relate the dispute over bonus- In paragraph 12 of the written statement it Is stated:

"That in the month of October 1968, the union raised the demnnd of bonus on behalf of all categories of casual hands with the Calcutta Master Stevedors Association and it was agreed by the member companies of the Association that the issue be referred to Tribunal for adjudication and without prejudice it was further agreed that a sum of Rs- 100/- (Rupees One hundred only), will be paid as advance against bonus to the Riggers, Cleaning gang workers, Marksmen, Carpenters and Gear handling workers."

Proceeding further, the written statement states, In paragraph 17, that Apolo Marine Syndicate did not give sympathetic consideration to the demand for bonus but

started terrorising and harassing the cleaning workers In various waya. Lastly, tfr paragraph 22 of the written statement, it is said:

"That In accordance with the provision of payment of bonus Act, 1965 the cleaning gang workers of M/s. Apolo Marine Syndicate are fully en- titled to get bonus at the rate of 20 per cent for the year 1964-65. 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68."

I need not summarise the remaining paragraphs of the written statement, which deal with principles of social justice from various text books and different judg- ments delivered by the Supreme Court.

3. On behalf of Apolo Marine Syndicate, there was a short written statement filed. In paragraph l(i) of the said written statement, the jurisdiction of this trl- hunal was challenged on the ground:

"Central Government Tribunal cannot have any jurisdiction in respect of. payment of Bonus to cleaning gang workers within the meaning of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948."

.n paragraph l(ii) and (iii) of the said written statement a point, described as pre- liminary point, was taken in most general term to the following effect:

•'(ii) That the Order of Reference is bad in law and not maintainable as there Is no industrial dispute between the Firm and its workmen who are not the cleaning gang workers at any material point of time.

(lii) That there being no relationship of master and servant and/or employer and employees between the Firm "and the cleaning gang workers, there cannot be any industrial dispute as raised by the Cleaning gang workers against the Firm and as such the Order of Reference is bad hi law."

On merits It was stated:

"3A. The Firm has a contractor, namely, Sri Nurul Haque with whom the Firm has contract that the cleaning gang work would be executed by him through his own employees and the Firm has no control nor supervision over the said employees of Shri Nurul Haque nor the Firm makes any payment of wages and/or any amount whatsoever, to the employees of Shri Nurul Haque; in fact, the Firm does not know as to> how many persons are engaged by Shri Nurul Haque and/or the- names of such persons for the execution of the cleaning gang work."

4 Mr C. L. Ganguly, Legal Adviser for Apolo Marine Syndiate, did not confine- himbcir to the preliminary objections in the forms taken in the written statement. He if framed the preliminary objections in the following manner;

id The cleaning gang workmen were not Dock workers and therefore, the Cen- tra] C I'ejunent was not the appropriate authority to refer the industrial dispute between thorn and Apolo Marine Syndicate to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.

(ii) The claim was made by the workmen under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Nothing h" submitted, in the Payment of Bonus Act Is to apply to employees: re£h>r?tv1 or listed under any scheme under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Em- ploinioit) Act, 1948 and employed by registered or listed employees, in as much a& Ap^lo Marine Syndicate is itself a registered and a listed employer, the claim under ;he J-Viyirent of Bonus Act must fail.

1 do not think that there is any substance in any of the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Ganguly. Under Sec. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the 'appro- priitf (' o.'-_"rnment" in relation to an industrial dispute conqernlng a "major port",, is the Central Government. That Calcutta ia a major port admits of no doubt. The rM'^t'on that remains for my consideration is whether the dispute concerns a major *iort It was not disputed before me, and it can not be disputed, that a dock is an Wtenral part of a port. Ships berth in Docks for loading, unloading, repairs, repaititings, cleaning and for trimming up for the next voyage. Gopal Chandra Mallick. one of the partners of Apolo Marine Syndicate, who deposed on behalf of the entp'oycr, described the duties of cleaning gang workmen In the following language:

••Cleaning gang ia engaged in sweeping or cleaning work of hatches, decks, bridges, gangways, etc. on board the ships. ••Cargoes are loaded \n hatches. Unless these places are retfulaily cleaned, they become in- fested with rats. Unless those places are cleaned the Health depart- ment may not grant de-rating certificate to the ship. The presence of rats may affect proper storage of cargoetf,"

Now, under Section 2(b) of Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 194S, at dock worker is defined as;

"Dock worker means a person employed or to be employed in or in the vicinity of any port or wharf in connection with loading, unloading, movement or storage of cargoes or work in connection with prepara- tion of other vessels for receipt or discharge of cargoes or leaving the port."

Now, work done by cleaning gang workmen in hatches is essentially work for effi- cient storaw of cargo, in hatches freed the menace of rodents. That makes them dock -wiikeib. If they are dock workers, their work concerns a port, in this instance a major port. As such the present industrial dispute concerns a major port. That makes the Central Government the appropriate authority to refer the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.

5. Turning now to the second branch of the preliminary objection, there is no dispute that Apolo Marine Syndicate is a listed employer of unregistered dock work- ers. This appears from the evidence of Gopal Chandra Mallick and also from the Exts. 3 and 3 (a)- This was also not disputed before me. In order to be exempted from the provisions of the Brnus Act, Section 33(ill) requires that the employees must be registered or listed under any scheme of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and must be employees of registered or listed employers. Here, the only evidence available is that un-registered employees are employed by listed employers. That alone will not exempt them from the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, I, therefore, over-rule of second preliminary objection also.

6. I turn now to the contention on the merits. On behalf of Apolo Marine Syn- dicate, Mr. Ganguly urged that cleaning gang workmen were all employed by Nurul Haque, a Sub-contractor under Apolo Marine Syndicate, Therefore, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and the Apolo Marine Syndicate- The picture that is painted by the evidence of Gopal Chandra Mallick is like this. Apolo Marine Syndicate are not cleaning contractors- They, however, do such contracts, through sub-contractors, when opportunity presents itself- Gopal Chandra Mallick stated in his evidence :

"We do not employ any workman for cleaning work- Cleaning work is done by us through the agency of sub-contractor- Nurul Haque is our present sub-contractor. He became our sub-contractor in 1967.

To Tribunal

There is no written sub-contract with Nurul Haque.

Exam, in chief ccntd.

We are given cleaning contract, by captains of ships, at times by agents of ships. The contracts for cleaning offered by Captains are all oral'¹

Describing how Nurul Haque became a sub-contractor, this witness described that prior to Nurul Haque, one Md. Elias was the tub-contractor under Apolo Marine Syndicate. Ehas left, Then Nurul Haque came forward with an ap- plication asking for employment in the place of Elias. This application is marked Ext. 6. The genuineness of this application is not admitted. Nurul Haque, who gave evidence on behalf of workmen, was confronted with this application. He stated:

"It is untrue that I ever applied for appointment as a contractor for supply of cleaning gang to Apolo Marine Syndicate, (Shown an application dated 22nd March, 1967. marked X for identification). The thumb impression on the application may be that of myself.

To tribunal

There were some writings on the paper when I put my thumb impression. What was written on the paper was not explained to me. I was mPT.eiy asked to put my signature on a partly written up paper and I did so.

Cross eittm. contd,

I dispute your suggestion that I brought the pacer, marked X. written from outside and landed over the same to Gopal Babu. My eyesight is not good. I can- "not disprove vour suggestion whether the paper was written tip, aa it now Stands, wheri I put my thumb Impression

on it. I admit that I put similar thumb impressions on numerous papers."

I am not inclined to place any reliance on this half-hearted, denial by Nurul .Haque. He may be an illiterate person but he is not a man ignorant of the ways of the world. If he is a labour contractor, as alleged by Apolo Marine Syndicate, or a labour Supervisor, as admitted by him, he has sufficient know- ledge of man and things and was not likely to act like a 'Pardanishin woman'. I am disinclined to believe that he put thumb impression on a written up paper without knowing what it contained. I, therefore, believe in the version of Gopal Chandra Mallick that Nurul Haque applied for being appointed cleaning gang supplier to Apolo Marine Syndicate. Gopal Chandra Mallick, witness for Apolo Marine Syndicate, further stated that Nurul Haque used to be given job- wise contract and he used to be paid bill-wise. Several payments made to Nurul Haque, evidenced by Ext. 2 series, bear out this statement. Mr. Malllck further stated;

"I do not pay directly to the cleaning gang of Nurul Haque. I do not know whether Nurul Haque pays his workmen after having received money from myself. Such payment is not aJso made from our office. Nobody on behalf of Apolo Marine Syndicate office goes to look after the job work entrusted to Nurul Haque."

This by Itself Is good enough evidence to show that Nurul Haque is a labour con- tractor. I need now see whether Nurul Haque corroborates this version- In his examination in chief, Nurui Haque said that he was a Sirdar amongst cleaning gang getting Rs. 3.25 as wages, while the workmen got Rs. 3 /- per shift as wsges. In his cross-examination, however, he crumbled to pieces. He said:

"(i) When any work for cleaning on board ships need be done on behalf of Apolo Marine Syndicate. I have the work done through my men. (ii) Workers who work as cleaning gang workers reside in Bustecs. I recruit them according to requirements of Apolo Marine Syndicate and get them on board after securing daily permits for them,

(iil) The members of the cleaning gang get RE. H/- from me per diem. (iv) In the cleaning gang there are 13 persons employed under me for work of Apolo Marine Syndicate.

(v) I sometimes make a profit of Rs- 20 to Rs. 50, sometimes I do not get any profit at all. I have been doing this type of work for Apolo Marine Syndicate since after Md. Elias left that is to say from the year 1967". (Ilaliciseat for emphasis).

He admitted Ext. 2 series in the following language:

''These are the papers on which I put my thumb Impression when I went to receive money on behalf of cleaning gang under my supervision."

The other witness examined on behalf of the workmen was one Sk. Kaloo, a member of the cleaning gang In his examination In chief he claimed to work under Apolo Marine Syndicate but In his cross-examination he admitted:

"Nurul Haque brings the money and we received the wages from his hands. Nurul Haque himself keeps an account and he does not take our thumb impressions against payment I do not receive payment from the company."

7. This evidence is very strong evidence to support the theory that Nurul Haque is the labour sub-contractor under Apolo Marine Syndicate. Mr. Azad, appearing for the workmen, however, strongly relied upon two dock permits, one issued in favour of Nurul Haque (Ext. F) and the other issued in favour of Sk. Kaloo (Ext. H). Ext. F is a temporary permit. Ext. H, however, Is a permit for two years' duration and the name of the firm Is described as Apolo Marine Syndicate. In Ext. H, Sk. Kaloo is described as a hatch cleaner (casual) and the name of his employer is described as Apolo Marine Syndicate. Mr. Azad contended that whatever may be the state of oral evidence on the point, the dock permits, caused to be issued at the instancp of the Apolo Marine Syndicate, should clinch the dispute and should establish who the real employer was. The evidence of Ext. F & H was sought to he neutralised by the following explanation to be found in the evidence of Nurul Haque himself, "I requested Apolo Marine Syndicate to cause dock permits Issued tn favour of the cleaning gang."

"^8- Mr. Ganguly sought to clarify the position with the contention that dock permits are only to be issued at the instance of listed or registered contractors. Since Nurul Haque is not a registered and listed contractor, dock permits cannot be issued at his instance. Therefore, when Nurul Haque was entrusted with the work of cleaning, he had to request Apolo Marine Syndicate to procure docic permits for workmen to be recruited by him. That Apolo Marine Syndicate did. Since the issue ol dock permits was made at the instance of Apolo Marine Syndi- cate, their name was recorded as employers. Such recording was a mere show piece. I am inclined to rely on the clarification.

9. With this state of evidence I have to hold that relationship of employer and employee between the cleaning gang workers and Apolo Marine Syndicate has not been established. It that has not been established, there is no justiilcatlon in the claim for bonus because bonus under the Payment of Bonus Act is payable by the employer to the employee and to none else.

10. Although it is not necessary for me to go further, I need observe that there Is a lurther infirmity behind the claim for the years 1964-65, 1965-6G, 1966 67. Nurul Haque, according to the evidence, became sub-contractor only in 1067. There is no evidence that peryons who are serving under Nurul Haque as cleaning gang workers were also serving under Md- Ellas, who was the predecessor of Nurui Haque. Only Sk. Kaloo says that he was working under Apolo Marine Syndicate for the last 5 or 6 years. What about others I do not know. I, therefore, cannot uphold the claim lor bonus lor the years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-G7, The reason why I cannot uphold claim lor the year 1967-68 also has already heielnbefore been stated by me.

11. I need add that I am not also .sure how many workmen who are entitled to bonus. Whether there are 13 or 2 L workmen remains unascertained, because neither the Muster-roll nor any other record has been produced.

I do not also know for how many days in each year, the workman worked and what wages they earned.

12. Before I part with this award, I need make one observation. The claim fails principally on the ground that the relationship of employer and employee was not established. It Is however, strange that although the claim was for bonus, the employers did not file their accounts or their statement of allocable surplus in order to enable me to calculate bonus. The employees also did not call for such accounts , or statements. On the first day of hearing 1 was compelled to make the following order:

''The order of reference has two parts, (i) whether the demand for payment of bonus for cleaning gang workers working under Messrs Apolo Marine Syndicate, Calcutta, lor the financial years 1964-65, 1965-66; 1966-67 and 1967-68 is justified; (ii) and if so, at what rate and from what date? The employers in relation to Apolo Marine Syndicate have not produced any materials, namely, Books of account, etc. for calculation of bonus. I therefore call upon Apolo Marine Syndicate to produce before this Tribunal the Bo3ks of Account for the aforesaid years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 to-morrow at the sitting of the Tribunal- Sum- mons to produce are not beinK sent because the order Is being made in the presence of Mr. C. L. Ganguly who appears for Apolo Marine- Syndicate."

Thereupon, to-day (July 4, 1969) certain books, being Exts. No. 14 to 21, certain receipts (Ext. 22) and certain statements (Exts. 23 and 24), were filed on behalf of employers. Gopal Chandra Mallick, partner of the Apolo Marine Syndicate was recalled by the Tribunal and stated in his evidence:

"Apolo Marine Syndicate does not maintain Cash Book, Ledger or journal in the business. Our accounting year begins from 1st April every year-'¹

It is strange that the employers do not even maintain a Cash Book Exts. 14 to' 19 are exercise books, such as school or college students use. Some of them are fully -written up, some are partly written up, which contain some rough jottings of expenditure statement. Ext. 20 is a bundle of loose sheets taken out from an exer^ cise book, said to contain expenditure statement from February 2, 1965 to February 27, 1967. The books do not appear to have regularly kept. Whether they have' been truly kept cannot be ascertained. From the books gross profit can never be

worked out. In answer to a question put by the Tribunal, Gopal Chandra Malllcjc gave the following answer:

''What profits Apolo Marine Syndicate made is only known to our Income Tax Lawyer."

The occasion does not arise for rre to calculate the allocable surplus. If that occasion had arisen, I could iut have proceeded on the account papers, If they are account papers at all, filed on bshalf of Apolo Marine Syndicate. They have not been regularly kept. What is more, they have been clumsily kept. What is most undesirable, they have been thoughtlessly kept wliiUi makes it Impossible for any tribunal to find out the profits made by the concern in a parti 'ular year. If the occasion had arisen for me to calculate the allocable surplus, I could not have relied on any one of the books filed before this Tribunal. Slnre that occasion does not arise for me, I leave the books with the observations as hereinbefore made.

13 In the result, I hold that the demand for payment of bonus for cleaning workers for the financial years 1904-65. 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-08 is not Justified. As suc-h, they are not entitled to any relief.

This is my award-

Sd./- B. N. BANERJEE,

Dated, the July 11, 1969.

Presiding Officer. [No. 28/7/69-LWI-IIL]

S.O. 3180,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1047), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in the industriql d'°r>ut9 between the employers In relation to the Malabar Group of Shipping C o m p i l es and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the- 7th July, 1069.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BOMBAY.

REFERENCE NO, CGIT-25 OF 1966

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Malabar Group of Shipping Companies.

AND

their workmen.

PRESENT

Shrl A. T. Zambre, Presiding Officer,

APPEARANCES :

For the employers: —Shri K- V. R. Shenoi, Advocate. For the ivorkmen: — Shrl T C. N. Menon, Advocate.

STATE: Kerala.

INDUSTRY: Ports and Docks.

Bombay dated 18th June 1969

AWARD PART II

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment by their order No. 28(86)/65-LRIV dated 14th April; 1966 have referred to this Tribunal for adjudication an industrial dispute existing- between the employers In relation to the Malabar Group of Shipping Companies and their workmen in respect of certain matters. Out of these matters the first six items related to the condi- tions of service such as revision of existing pay scales, demand of linking dear- ness allowance with, cost of living index etc. The parties had amicably settled the five Items of dispute and I have passed an award Part T In respect of the same on 28th December 1968 which has been published in the Gazette of India part II section 3(ii) dated 8th February 1969 at pages 539 to 545. The sixth Item of dispute related to the action of the management in dismissing Shri N. Gangadharnn; driver in the employ of the management. The union had by Ita statement of claim challenged the justification of the, dismissal on various grounds such as violation of principles of natural Justice, victimisation^ Iterversity etc. and had led oral evidence. The union had examined th,e driver and had produced certain documents. The management examined the enquiry

officer Shri Kalyanji and further wanted to examine Shrl 0. C. Thomas, Manag- ing Partner of Choice Canning Company; Cochin 2 and the case was fixed for further hearing on 11th June 1969. However, the parties after leading so much evidence amicably settled this item of dispute also and have prayed for an award in terms of the settlement.

2. The dismissed driver Shri N- Gangadharan was in the service of the emp- loyer for 10 years and was dismissed on 16th December; 1962. He was charged for the misconduct of not keeping car K L-R. 3191 properly maintained and theft of some tools. The management had also held an enquiry and after the ilndinga he was dismissed. Under the terms of the settlement the management has agreed to pay Shri Gangadharan an amount of Rs. 1500 in full and llnal settlement of all hii claims relating to the termination of his employment including the amount due towards provident fund and the dismissed workman Shri Gangadharan has also accepted the amount. It has been further agreed that certain sums which had already been paid to the driver prior to his dismissal as advarce towards wages will not be recovered and will be treated as additional amounts due and paid under the settlement. The payment is an ex-gratia Vnsis and is not to be treated as a precedent. The driver was actually working till the 13th qf October 1962. He had kept the car in the garage that evening and when the car was taken to the repairers the next day It was found to have been damaged. In the enquiry the management had led the evidence oi¹ the repairer and after the find- ings the driver was dismissed. Though the worVman was present during the enquiry he had not cross-examined the witnesses. He had also not Jed any evidence and considering the circumstances I think the terms of settlement are reasonable and I think it proper to accept the settlement and pass an award in terms of the same. The terms of settlement exhibit—1 shall form part of this award.

No order as to costs.

(Sd.) A. T. ZAMBRE,

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal;

Bombay.

EXHIBIT 1

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-25 OF 1968

PARTIES

The Employers in relation to the Malabar Steamship Company Limited and others.

AND

Their Workmen.

Joint Memorandum, of Settlement Filed by the Parties

1. All the issues except Issue No. 8 relating to the dismissal of Driver Sri N. Gangadharan; have already been settled by the parties and the relative settle- ments have also been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2. Issue No. 6.—This relates to the dismissal of Sri N. Gangadharan; Driver. The Management will pay and Sri Ganeadharan will accept Rs. 1,500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred) Only in full and final settlement of all his clalm3 relating to the termination of his employment, including amounts due towards provident fund. Certain amounts already paid prior to his dismissal, as advance towards wages, will not (be recovered by the Management, but will tie treated as additional amounts due and paid under this Settlement.

3, This payment is on an ex-gratia basis and will not be treated as a prece- dent far any purpose.

Dated this the l&th day of April, 1969.

For the Cochin Commercial Employees Association.

(Sd.) T. C. N. TVtorON,

Advocate for the Union.

Sd/- Jt. Secy. For the Malabar Steamship Group of Cos.

Advocate for the Management. Sd/- Manager.

[No. 28/68/65-LR-IV.J.

New Delhi, the 29th July 1969

S.O. 3181.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1959, the same having beeni previously published as required by the said sub-section, namely: —

1. This Scheme may be called the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Third Amendment Scheme, 1969.

2. In clause 31 of the Visakhapatnam Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1059, in the first proviso, for the words "fifty naye Faise"; the words "seventy-five paise" shall be substituted.

[No. 56(3)/69-Fac. II.]

New Delhi, the 31st July 1969

S.O. 3182.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Dock Workers ("Regulation of Employment) Act. 1948 (9 oi 1940), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the Kandla Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1968, the bame having been previously published as required by the said sub-section, namely: —

1. This Scheme may be called the Kandla Unregistered Dock Workers (Regular tion of Employment) First Amendment Scheme, 1969.

2. In the Kandla Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment)' Scheme, 1968—

(1) in clause 17.—

(a) in item (i) of sub-clause (1), for the expression "Department of Food in. the Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co- operation of the Government of India" "Department of Food" and "aforesaid Department", thp expression "Food Corporation of India" shall be substituted:

(b) In items (vlii) and (xii) of sub-clause (1), sub-clause (2) and sub-clause- (4), for the expression "Department of Food" the expression "Food* Corporation of Tndia" shall be substituted;

(2) in Schedule I, for the expression "Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community- Development and Co-operation of the Government of India", the expression "Food* Corporation of India", shall be substituted.

[No. 58/3/68-Fac.n.J

C. RAMDAS, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New De'hi, the 31st July 1969

S.O. 3185.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 73F of the Employees' State Insur- ance Act, 1948 (34 °f 1948), the Central Government having regard to the location of the factories specified in column (4) of the Schedule below, in sparse areas in the State of Maharashtra and specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Schedule, hereby exempts the said factories from the payment of employer's special contribution leviable under Chapter VA of the said Act for a period of one year from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette or until the *nforcemeat of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act in those areas, which- ever is earlier.

SCHEDULE

Name of District

Name of Area

Name of the Factory Serial No.

( 2)

CD

(3)

(4)

i. Buldhana

. Buldhana

•

. Messrs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Malka- pur Road, Buldhann.

2. Talcgaon

. Wardha

•

Messrs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Talc- gaon.

[No. F. 6(s8)/68-HI.]

New Delhi, the 1st August 1969

S.O.3IS6.—In pursuance of sub-Section (i) of section ioC of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (46 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act,) the Central Government hereby directs that the powers exercisable by it under section roF of the said Act and specified in column (1) of the Table below shall, subject to the conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, be cxercisable also by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in tV'c Office of ihe Chief Labour Commissionei (Central) and tho- Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, Calcutta, Jabalpur, Asanaol, Ajmer, Bombay andJ Hyderabad.

TABLE

Condition

Power

2

1

Puvvcr to recover damages under section 10F from 1. Subject to a maximum of 25% of the- amount of arrears; recovery of damages shall be made at the sliding rates specified in the Schedule annexed hereto.

any employer who makes default in the payment of bonus payable under the provisions of the Coal Mines Bonus Schemes framed under the said Act.

Provided that—

(a) 5 days of grace may be allowed for making the payment during which period t 0 damages shall be levied ; (ft) For. delays upto 15 days, including 5 days of grace, damages at half the rates specified in the said Schedule may be levied.

2. Damages shall be recovered in respect of bonus due for payment on or after the is: July, 1969 but not paid within the due- dates. '

3. The period of delay in payment for which damages arc to be recovered, shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the bonus in question become* due for payment. The date of payment of bonus shall be the date on which the bonus due is actually paid to the employee.

4. Any damages demanded by the officers mentioned above shall be payable by the employer or person concerned within thirty days from the date of such demand failing which the amount of damages due shall be recoverable under section I OA of the said Act.

5. Where the amount of damages to be levied by the officers mentioned above does n"t exceed rupees two in any one case, he may, at his own discretion waive the recovery of such damages.

6, Any damages levied by the officers shall be paid to the "Reserve Account" in such manner as the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) may specify.

SCHEDULE

Sliding rate of recovery of damages under Section 10F of the Coal Mines Provident

Fund and Bonus Schemes Act 1948.

SI. No . of default during

the year.

One month or less

Over one month and upto two months

1

2

3

1st default

. 2% of arrears

5% of arrears

2nd default

. 5% of

arrears

10% of arrears

3rd default

. 10% of

arrears

15% "f arrears

4th default

. 15% of

arrears

20% of arrears

5th default

25% of arrears

. 20% of arrears

•6th or subsequent

25% of arrears

. 25% of arrears

default.

Period of default

Over four Over five months months and upto five months Over two months and upto rhrec months

Over three months, arid upto four months

6

5

4

7

15% of arrears

10% of arrears

20% of arrears

25% of arrears

15% of arrears

25% of arrears

20% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears 20% Of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

25% of arrears

[No. 3(36)/67-PF. I]

DALJIT SINGH, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 3Qih July 1969

S.O. 3187.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the following Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay, in the industrial dis- pute between the employers in relation to fifteen insurance companies and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 23rd July, 1969.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL. TRIBUNAL No 2, BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO- CGIT-2/2 OV 1968

Employer in Relation to:—

(1) The Guardian Assurance Co- Ltd., (2) The Caledonian Insurance Co. t3) The Commercial Union Assurance Co. Ltd., 4ft) The Home Insurance Co (5) The Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd., (6) The Northern Assurance Co. Ltd , (7) The Employers Liability Assurance Corpn. Ltd., (8) The Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd , (9) The Royal Insurance Co. Ltd.,

(10) The London & Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd., (11) The Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Co, Ltd.r (12) The Central Insurance Co Ltd, (13) The South British Insurance Co. Ltd., (14) The Alliance Assurance Co. Ltd., (15) The Sun Insurance Office. Ltd.,

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT ,

Shn N. K. Vanl, Presdilng Officer,

APFEAHANCES:

For the Employers: Shri N. V- Bhadke, Advocate, Shri P. K. R'ele, Soli- citor and Shri S- V. Mokashi, Labour Adviser.

For the Workmen: Shri J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Sfiri Madan Mohan, Vice President, All India Insurance Employees' Association and Shri K. S. B. Pillai, General Secretary, General Insurance Employees' Union, Western Zone, Bombay-

INDUSTRY: General Insurance.

STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, the 1st July, 1969

AWARD

By order No. 74(15)/fl4-LRIV dated 7th October 1964, the Government or India, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment referred to the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Bombay lor adjudication, an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to 15 companies mentioned above and their workmen represented by the General Insurance Employees' Union In respect of the matter specified in the Schedule II.

2. Out of 26 demands mentioned in Schedule II, demand No. XI is as fellows: —

"XI. Retirement gae:—The age of retirement of an employee shall be 60 years.

3- Later on by Order No 22/8/69-LRIII dated 25th November 1968, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for ad- judication.

4. "Jhe facts of this case in respect of demand No. 11 regarding Retirement \ge are mentioned ifi detail in Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968.

5. For reasons given In my judgment in Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 on the demand regarding retirement age, I fix the retirement age o- the emp- loyees working In this company at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

6. The employees who are continued in service even after their old date3 1.1 retirement on any account, and who are in service on 30th June 1969 should continue in service till they reach and complete the age of tiO years. These per- •=uns will be entitle^ to the benefits of retirement age fixed at 60 years.

7. In view of the above finding, I pass the following order.

OuDtR

1. The retirement age of the employees -working in these companies Is lixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

'.'. The employees who are In service on 30th June 1969 on Rny account (either on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of extension etc ) should continue in service and retire after the completion of 60 years.

,?. Award Part I in respect of retirement ag els made. 4. A copy of the judgment in Reierence No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 is less to form part of; this Award

'

0 No order as to costs-

(Sd.) N. K. VANI,

Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

No. 2, Bombay.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/7 OF 1968

Employers in relation to the Group Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society "Ltd , Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.

Their Workmen.

PRESENI :

Shri N K. Vani, President Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers,—Shri N V. Phadke, Advocate, Shri P. K. Relc, Solicitor and Shri S V. Mokashl Labour Adviser-

For the Workmen: Shri J G Grdkari. Advocate, Shri Madan Mohan, Vice President. All India Insurance Employees' Association, and Shri K. S. B Filial. General Secretary, General Insurance Employees" Union, Western Zone Bombay-

INDUSTRY: General Insurance

STATE: Maharashtra,

Bombay, datPd the 1st July, 19fi9

AWARD By order No. 70(ll)/fi4-LRlV dated 10th AuKUst 1965, the Government of India, In the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) referred to the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. for ndHidieattcm an industrial dispute existing between the employ- ers in relation to the Groun Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limi- ted. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their workmen in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule mentioned below: —

ScHrDui.E

3. On 27th September 1965, Shri K. S- B. Fillui, General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay on behalf of the workmen has filed written statement at Ex. W/l. It is contended that the existing age of retire.nent In the companies under reference at 38 be fixed at 60, that the com- panies in question have ample capacity to pay and to bear the burden that would be involved due to this" demand, that there is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age for clerical and subordinate staff at 60, that the Normus Committee has also expressed the opinion that the retirement age f_>r workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60, that longivity of life in the country is Increasing, that the employees are keeping better health on account of medical facilities available to them, that the employees' demand for fixing the retirement age at 60 is justified, reasonable and modest and that the same be granted.

4. The employers in relation to the Group Office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Co- and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay i.e. the Insurance Companies concerned in this reference (here- inafter referred to as 'the companies') have filed written statement at Ex- E /l on 21st September 1965. It is contended that the past experience shows that the efficiency of the clerical statf declines from the age of 55, that the value of> the services of such employees rapidly decline in relation to their emoluments, that the retirement age prescribed by the companies is fair and reasonable, th;tt the Union's demand for raising the age of retirement is unreasonable and that the same be rejected. It is also contended that in any event the Tribunal should be pleased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as requliing the employe? to attend if so iequired by the Company, before its doctor iti order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service. Similar provisions should be pi es- cribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee ta'her on medical giound before attaining the age of 58 years.

5- The companies have filed rejoinder at Ex. E/2 on 17th November 1965. By this rejoinder the companies denied the allegations made by the Union In its writ- ten statement Ex- W/l and reiterated their stand taken in the written statement 611 Ex, E/l.

6. The General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay has produced a statement showinft the existing retirement age in the companies under reference and certain ether Insurance companies and commercial concerns In Bombay, in all 24, nt Ex. W/2. Out of 24 companies, the retirement age in 23 companies is 00 years..

7 The companies have produced a statement at Ex. E/3 showing the age of retirement existing in csrtaln Insurance Companies in Bombay. Another statement showing the retirement age existing in the companies concerned In references Nos CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1963, and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 is produced at Ex. E/4. Another statement giving information regarding the date on which the Government of India referred the Industrial Disputes of M/s South British Insurance Co, Ltd., Bombay and other Companies for adjudication by the Tribunal and the dates of retrospective effect, if any agreed between the parties to the Award of the Tribunal, is produced at Ex- E/5. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/fl which gives particulars of work- men who retired (at age below 60) from the service of the Companies during thp pendency of the above references.

8. Reference No. CGIT-2/3 of 1%8 between the same parties as in Reference No. 7/68 was made to the Tribunal for adjudicating 17 demands. In those 17 demands, the demand regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 had remain- ed to be made. Hence separate Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 in respect of retirement age was made to the Tribunal.

9. In reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 there Is dispute about 26 demands in- cluding the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the emoioysos and 15 companies as mentioned in Schedule I in that reference.

10. In reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands In- cluding the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the em- ployees and M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.

11. iti Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands in- cluding the demand regarding the retirement age (Demand No, 11) betweeri the employees and M/s. Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay.

12. In Reference No. CGIT-2/11 oi 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including tne retirement age ^ e u i a u u. MQ. 1^ .jcween tne employees and M/s. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.

U Keierenceb ttos- CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1966, CG1T-2/8 of 19b3 ana v_u±r--s/il of idb8 in respect of demana regarding retiiemeni age only are neara togetner alongwith reierence rJo. CG1X-2/V of 1968, WHICH IS in respect of 1 eurement age only.

14. At the outset, it may be noted that in Reference No- CGIT-2/4 of 1968 between JYi/s riagie Star Insuiance Co. Ltd., Bombay and the General Insurance Employees, union, representing the workmen 01 tne said company, the dispute idgaicimg retirement age should not have been raised because as a result of tne agteemem daied z/ih. September 1961, entered into between the company and tne workmen, the remement age in the company has already been fixed at 60 years. This is clear from para 30 of the written statement filed by M/s. i,dgKj Star Insuidnce Company .Ltd-, Bombay on 28th April 19bb in reierence No. U L J I T - ^ /4 of 19b8 (old Reference No. CGlf-3o 01 1966 before the Central Gov- ernment Industrial Tribunal, Bombay).

15. The dispute regarding raising the age of retirement to (JO it between the employees and the companies involved in References No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CG1T-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-J/8 of 1968 and CGI1-2/11 of 1968.

lfi. The important point for consideration is whether the demand of the workmen in lelerences NoB. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 19H8 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 for raising the retirement age irom 58 to 60 years ll justified.

17. My finding on tins pomL is in the affirmative for the following r e a s o n s :^

LH. The learned advocate Shrl Gadkari for the employees contends that there la consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age at 60. In suppoiL of his contention he relies on the ruling reported in L964, II, LLJ, Page G44 in the case between Talang G. M. and others Versus Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd., and another.

19. Shri Phadke, learned advocate for the companies contends that there is no law that in Bombay Region the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

20- It is true that there is no law which says that age of clerical and subordinate staff working in Bombay Region, in various concerns should be fixed at 60 years, but there is a trend in Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of the employees at 60 years. This trend hos been recognised by various Tribunals and also by the Supreme Court of India.

21. In the case between Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd., Bombay and its workmen, reported in 1960 II, LLJ, Pago 716; where the Tribunal raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court- The Supreme Court has observed that the evidence en record strongly suggests almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retirement at 60 and not at o5-

22. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court m the above men- tioned case on page 720 as follows: —

"As this Court pointed out In the case of Dunlop Company (Supra), the re- cent trend in the Bombay area clearly appears to be to fix the age of retirement at GO- That being to, we see no reason why the age of retirement of the workmen m the present appeal should not be similarly fixed-"

23. In the case of Talang (G.M.) and others Shaw Wellance & Co. Ltd., and another, reported in 1964, 11, LLJ; page 644; it is observed by iheir Lordships of Supreme Court as follows: —

"As observed in the two decisions in 1960 II, LIJ, 716 and 1959 II, LLJ- 826 the trend in the Bombay Region is to fix the age of retirement at 60 years."

24. There could not be any doubt from the various rulings of the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court has recognised the trend In Bombay Region to [lx the age of retirement at 60 years. Hence, even though, there is no rule or law which lays down that the age of the employees of Bombay Region should

be fixed at 60 years, still the trend prevailing in Bombay Region fixing the re- tirement age at 60 years has to be recognised. Hence the contention raised by Shri Phadke, learned Advocate for the companies cannot be accepted.

25. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari relies on the report of the Normus Committee, referred to in 1964, II, LLJ; Page 647; in tha case between Taiang (,G-M.) and another and Sharw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another. It is as follows:—

"After taking into consideration the views of the earlier committees and commissions including those of the Second Pay Commission, the report of which has been released recently, we feel that the retirement age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60. Aecoidingly, the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60-"

26- The opinion of the Normus Committee referred to above clearly supports the view that the retirement age of clerical and subordinate stail should be lixed at 60 years.

27. In the case between Taiang (G-M.) and others and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another, Their Lordships of Supreme Court have referred to the Pay Commis- sion's report, referred to in 1964, II; LLJ; Page 645. The relevant portion is as follows: —

•'As has already been noticed, there is no dispute that the age of compulsory retirement should not remain at 55. The dispute is whether it should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It is interesting to refer in this ecnnexion to the information that has been collected by the Pay Commission (1957— 59) as regards the pensionable ages prescribed under the pension Insu- rance schemes for employees generally or for Industrial employees and under social assistance or universal schemes in 48 countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable age is 70 in two countries; 67 i:i another two; 65 in twenty-four, 60 in seventeen, 55 irr two and 50 in one- Thus out of 48 countries for which information was available it was found that in 45 countries the pensionable age was lixed at 60 or more. As the Pay Commission Report pointed out—'"this is parti- ' nularly remarkable, considering that the countries differ widely in demographic! constitution, levels of economic development and climatic and social conditions; and it indicates a virtual unanimity of competent opinion that balancing the various factor?—physiology a!. economic and social—that are relevant the normal worsting life should continue up to the age of 60, and may well go on up to 65 years."

28. The Supreme Court has further observed as follows:—-

"It is undoubtedly more useful, however and indeed essential for our present purpose to examine the trends in this matter in ouv own country and specially in the region in which the present dispute has arisen. In the delicate task of adjusting needs of the employees u, the interests of the employers and what is even more important iu the general in- terests of the country at large, industrial adjudication has to pay special attention to the prevailing practice in the industrial region concerned. If in any particular region employees have been successful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60 th's very success is bound to raise in others in tha region similar expectations Refusal of similar relief to them is likely to create discontent It is the en- deavour of industrial adjudication to prevent this. That is why on questions of age of retirement and hours of work and other similar matters industrial tribunals attach much weight to what has been done in other industrial concerns in the neighbourhood in recent times— whether by agreement or by adjudication."

29. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari has relied on Ex. W/2 which is a com- parative statement showing retirement age in the companies under reference, certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bo "nbay.

30. Out of 24 companies mentioned in the statement Ex. W/2 the retirement age Is 60 in respect of 23 companies.

31. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/4 showing the present re- tirement age in each company. Out of 22 companies mentioned in the Ex. E/4. re- tirement age in Eagle Star Insurance Co- Ltd., Bombay is 60 years. The retirement age for males in respect of Home Insuance Co. is 60 years. The retirement age in respect of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., is 58 but there is a rule under which

extension upto 60 years at the company's discretion can be given. Out of 19 re- maining companies, the age of retirement is 55 years in the Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd. and 58 years in the remaining 18 companies. Some com- panies have go discretion to give extension beyond 58 years.

32. As there are 23 companies as mentioned in Ex. W/2, in which the retire- ment age of clerical and subordinate staff is 60 years, the employees working in the companies referred to in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 would feel disgrunteled and dissatisfied, if their retirement age is not raised to 60 years and if they aie asked to retire before the age of 60 years- This will disturb industrial peace and create unrest, and dissatisfaction amongst the employees- In order that there should be industrial peace and satisfaction among the various employees working in this region, uniformity of retirement age has to be maintained. In order to maintain the same uniformity, it is abolutely necessary that the age of retirement oi the employees in the companies referred to in the above references should be fixed at 60 years.

33. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke contends that the companies in ques- tion are all India concerns and that changing the terms of service conditions in regard to retirement age in one nlace might unsettle the uniformity and might have serious repercussion in other branches.

34- In the case between Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Ltd- and its workmen and others, reported in 1959. II. LLJ. Page 826; their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as follows: —

"There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail in any such concern, they should not be Hghtly changed. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that indus- trial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise whera it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the condition of service of all-India concern are uniform. Besides, however, desirable uniformity may be in the case of all-India ccncerns, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeking that fa r conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is concjrned. If there- fore any scheme, which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an ail-India concern appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the dutv of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing condition? in s,ucn. matters, particularly in the region in which the tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made bv orly a small minority of the workmen employed in one place JUT of the many where the all India concern carries on business-"

S£ Ont of the important point for consideration would be that the age of re- tirement can be confined to industry-cum-region basis. It has been held that Awtrds and agreements on the question of age of retirement cleariv show that there is a consistent trend m Bombay Region to fix the retirement ag? of Clerical and Subordinate staff at 60 years.

36- As there are number of concerns in Bombay Region where the age of re- tirement is 60. the contention of learned Advocate Shri Phadke that age of retire- ment in the companies, where the retirement age is below 60. should not be fixed at 60 on the ground that these concerns are all-India concerns; cannot be accepted. If this contention of Shri Phadke is accepted, it will create unrest, dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It will disturb the industrial peace. In the sarre Region on the principle of industry-cum-region basis, disparity m ages of retirement in different concerns cannot be allowed.

37. The learned Advocate Shri Phsdke relies on the Award of Reserve Bank of India given by the Arbitrator Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Retired Supreme Court Judge, published in the Gazette of India, dated 5th March, 1S68- Part II Section 3 (ii); pages 183 to 298.

38. It appears from the facts of the Award referred to above that the demand of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India was to raise their retirement age to 60 years. In considering this demand all previous Supreme Court rulings have been considered. The Arbitrator refused to raise the age of retirement having'

regard to the special position occupied by the Reserve Bank of India as distinct from commercial concerns and iiberax character o± superannuation benefits.

39. It has been observed in paras- 18.4 and 18-5 of the Award as follows: —

•'18.4. The result of the above authorities may thus be stated: Of the several relevant factors to be taken into account in fixing the age of letueaieni, the industry-cuni-region principle is one of the most important. The weight to be given to it in an all-India concern, however, depends on tne other factors and considerations. Another imjLoruut factor to be taken into account is the existence of a scheme of . uperannuation Dentnts. Wneie it is iiboial, that will Lie a grcuiid u r.oi raisins the age. On an ultimate analysis, a decision on the question must turn on the facts and circumstances of each case. '

"iiJ.5. What then are the facts of this case? We start with this that in the Bombay region, the age of retirement for workmen is in general 60 and that has been adopted by the commercial banks- As against this, the contention of the Bank is that it is not in the same situation as the commercial banks, that its business activities and service con- ditions are more akin to those m the Central Government and that it Is the rules in Government service that would be more appropriate and not those in commercial banks. It has been already jointed out mat though the Reserve B^nk docs carry on banking :.usmetiS, Us main and substantial work is sovereign in character. Even its banking activities are not comparable with those oi commercial ba:iks. Its customers are not members of public, but Central aru State Govern- ments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like- Apart fiom this, it is under a duty to secure inonetray stability and has to take decisions on policies of an all-India character. Moreover its business is largely bound up with the work of the Government and this has led to the reciuitmem of a lai'ge number of temp^ra.Y h

40 Tt ii clear that on account of peculiar position occupied ov the Reserve Bank •oi India and tho liberal character of the superannuation benefits, the arbitrator refused to raise the retirement age to 60- In my opinion, the facts cf the eaa? Of the Reserve Benk of India employees do not compare with the facts of this cass. Further each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.

41. The companies involved in various References are Insurance Companies i.e. commercial concerns. They are concerned with public, while the Heseive Bank of India is concerned with the Centra] and Stats Government"; public bodies, commercial banks and the like. It has no transactions with private individual.

42. Except in the case of Home Insurance Co., in reference Nc. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, the age of retirement in almost all companies is 58. In the case of Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd, in reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968, the retirement age is 00 years. The Home Insurance Co., as mentioned in Ex. E/4. has got provision to give extension to its employees at its discretion, beyond 60 years As there is no uniformity among these companies, functioning in the same region, it is absolutely necesr.orv to bring uniformity in the retirement 3*^ ~->— raiding the age of retire- ment to 60 years.

43. In the References before me tte employees are not satisfied with the existing superannuation benefits and other benefits to which they are entitled They have #ot a ffrievance regarding different ages of retirement in different companies- Except in the Home Insurance Co- there is no pension scheme in at y other com- panies. Even though there is pension scheme, the Home Insurance Company gives extension to their employees beyond GO years. As no pension scheme has been provided by other companies there is justification for the employees' claim that their retirement age should be raised and fixed at 60 years.

44- Tlip learned Advocate Shri Phadke says that wherever, the retirement age is 60, It should be mxiitained at 60 and wherever the retirement age is less, it

••Sjay not be taken beyond 58. I am unable to accept the contention of Shri Phadke that wherever the retirement age is less it should not be raised beyond 68 years.

45- In Reference No- CGIT-2/7 of 1968, the employers contend that the retire- ment age prescribed by these companies is fair and reasonable, that there Is no case for increasing the retirement age and that the same be not increased because the efficiency of the clerical stall declines from the age of 55 years and because the value of the service by such employees rapidly declines In relation to their emolu- ments. This contention raised by the employers cannot be accepted.

46. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 845 of 1966 in the case between the workmen of Kettlewell Bullen & Co. .Ltd. and the Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd., dated 12th February 1969 that the efficiency of workmen does not get impaired till about 60 years. The relevant portion In r^pei-1 nf this observation is as follows: —

' Ir is now-a-days fairly well rercgnised that, life expectation has considerably increased in recent years and the rate of mortality has fallen consi- derably on account of better living condition, improved medical facili- ties and abeve all the extension of educational arnenitie". The result is 1bal physical efllciency of workmen generally soeaking is not deterio- rated till about 60 years. Consequently there has in the last decade been a general tiend to raise the age of retirement. This is so also in the case of employees in Government service and in ths service of (juasi-government concerns. In raising the age of retirement, apart from the fact that the efficiency of workmen does not pet impaired till about 60 years, consideration is also paid to the fact that his needs are likely to "be larger between the ape of SO and BO year^ as It is during ihat span of life that he has to educate his child.en, marry his daughters and thus incur additional financial burden over and above the burden of maintenance of his family."

47. The companies in reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 contend that if this Tri- bunal is inclined to increase the retirement age to 60 It should l_e pleased to pres- rnbe adequate safeguards such as requiring the employee to attend If so required Ly the Company, before its Doctor in order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service and that similar provisions should be proscribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical ground before attaining the ege of 58 years. I am unable to accept the stand of the companies.

48. If the companies are given discretion to retire any employee before the age of 5fl or after 58 and before 60 years, discrimination Is likely to bi" caused.

49. If some employees become inefficient and do not do work, the companies can take action against them for their inefficiency after holding departmental en- quiry, following the rules and regulations. In my opinion, it is not necessary to make ary provision as suggested by the companies to enable them to retire a person be Eor 3 58 or at any time after the age of 38 and before 60 years.

50. As regards the other companies, their contention is that the retirement age is reasonable and thaf there is no case for increasing the retirement age of the employee .s

51- In view of the? changed circumstances and the faci that the retiring age Is 60 years \r many concerns it cannot be said that the present retiring age in these Insurance Companies 1B reasonable, and fair and that there is n0 case for increasing the retirement age.

92. In ail Government services the age of retirement of subordinate staff i.e. peons etc is flO years, though penison scheme is provided for them and better re- tirement benefits are available to them.

S3 In short, considering the arguments of Shri Gadkari for the employees and Shrl Phadke for the employers and having regard to the documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the view that the retirement age of all the employees- in question should be fixed at 60 years.

54- Th" next point for consideration is from what date the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

35. The learned Advocate Shri Godkarf for the employees contends that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years with retrospective effect.

56. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke for the employers on the other hand contends that the retirement age should not be fixed with retrospective effect as"34 would cieate complications in the administration.

57. Generally, whenever the retirement age is tixed; it cannot be fixed with retrospective eilect. It has to be Ilxed with effect from a particular date.

58. For the reasons given above, I am of the view¹ that th; retirenie.it age should be fixed ai. 80 yearB with effect from 30th June 1969- At the same time, the em- ployees whp are continued in service even after their old dates of retirement in various companies referred to above, on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of any extension or any reason and who are In service on 30th June 1969 should continue in service till they reach the age cf 60 years. These persons will be entitled to the benefits of retirement age fixed st 60 years.

59. In view of the above findings I pass the following order: —

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in the Group office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bpmbay is flxed_at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

2. The retirement age of the employees working In 15 companies mentioned in the Schedule I to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Order No. 74(15)/64-LRIV dated 7th October 1964, Ref. No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 is fixed at 60 years with effe.-t from 30th June 1969.

3. The retirement age of the employees of the Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay fixed at 60 yerirs under the agreement dated 27th September 1961 entered into between the company and its workmen is to con- tinue. [Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India Order No. 74(15)/64-LRiV] Pt., dated 23rd April 1965, Reference No. CGIT- 2/4 of 1968 ]

(Sd.) N. K. VANI,

->S.O. 3188,—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 Of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. Bombay, in the industrial dispute between the employeis in relation to the New Zealand Insurance Company Ljijnrted, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 23rd July, 1969.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY. REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/11 OF 1968

Employers in ielation to M/s. New Zealand Insurance Company, Limited. Bombay AND Their workmen.

PRESENT

Shri N. K. Vani. Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen.—Shrl J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Shri Madan Mohan, Vice- and Shri S. V. Mokashi, Labour Adviser.

For the workmen.—Shri J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Shri Madan Mohan, Vice- President, AH India Insurance Employees' Association and Shri K. S. B. Pillai. General Secretary, General Insurance Employees' Union, Western Zone, Bombay.

STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

INDUSTRY: GENERAL INSURANCE,

Bombay, dated the 1st July, 1969

AWAIRD

By Order No. 74(2)/66-LRIV dated the 11th March. 1906, the Government ol India, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment referred to the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal Bombay for adjudication, an industrial dispoite existing between the employers in relation to M/s New Zealand Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their wrokmen represented by the General Insurance Employees' Union in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule.

2. Out of 26 demands mentioned in the Schedule, demand No. 11 is as fo'lows;—

"XI. Retirement Age ''The afie of retiiement of an emplriyee shall be CO years.

','„ Later on by Order No. 22/8/68-LR1TI 25th November, I960, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

4. The fa'tj o" this case In respect of the demand No. 11 regarding Retirement Age are mertionetl in detail In Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968.

5. For roafcons fiiven in my judgment In reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 on the demand regarding reiirernent age, I fix the retirement age of employees work- ing in this company at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1069.

6. The employees who arc continued in service even after their old dates of retirement on any account, and who are in service on 30th June, 1969 should -continue in service till they reach and complete the age oi 60 years. These persons will b£ entitled to the benefits of retirement age fixed at 60 years.

7. In visw of the above finding, I pass the following order: —

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in this company is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June. 1969.

2. The employees who are in service on 30th June, 1969 on any account (either on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of extension etc.) should continue in service and retire after the completion of 60 years.

3. Award Part I in respect of retirement age is made.

4. A copy of the judgment in Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 is to form pall of this Award.

&. No ordtr an to costs.

(Sd.) N. K VANI,

Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2 BOMBAY. REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/7 OF 1968

Employers in relation to the Group Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.

AND

Theiv workmen

PRESENT

Shri N. K. Vani, Presiding Officer.

APITARANCEH .

For the Employers:— Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate, Shrl P. K. R-ele, Solicitor and Shrl S. V. Mokashi, Labour Advlder.

For the Workmen:—Shrl J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Shri Madanraohan Vice- President, All India Insurance Employees Association, and Shrl K. S. B. Filial, General Secretary, General Insurance Employees Union Western Zone, Bombay.

STATE; Maharashtra-

INDUSTRY: General Insurance

Bombay, dated the 1st July, 1909.

AWARD

By order No. 70(ll)/64-LRIV dated 10th August, 1965, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rahabilitntion (Department of Labour and Employment) referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Group offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their workmen in respect of the matter specified In the Schedule mentioned below: —

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the demand of the workmen in the group office Norwich Union Fire Insurance¹¹ Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited for raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years Is Justified?

(2) If so, to what extent and from which date it should take effect?

2. Later on. by order No. 22/8/68-LRIII dated 25th November, 1968. the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

3. On 27th September, 1965, Shrl K. S. B. Filial Genera', Secretary of the General Insurance Employees' Union,—. Bombay on behalf of the workmen has filed writien statement at Ex. W/l. It Is contended that thP existing age of retirement in the companies under reference at 58 be fixed at 60, that the companies In question have ample capacity to pay and to bear the burden that would be Involved due to this demand, that there is consistent trend In the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age for clerical and subordinate staff at 60, that the Normus Committee has also expressed the opinion that the retirement age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60, that longivity of life in the country is increasing, that the employees are keepine better health on account of medical facilities available to them, that the employees' demand for fixing the retirement age at 60 Is justified reasonable and modest and that the same be granted.

4. The employers in relation to the group office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. and Maritime Insurance

Cdr-Ltd-, Bombay i.e. the Insurance Companies concerned in this reference (here- inafter referred to as the companies') have filed written statement at Ex, E/I on 21st September, 1965. It 13 contended that the past experience shows that the efficiency of the clerical stall declines from the age of 55, that the value of the services of such employees rapidly decline in relation to their emoluments that the retirement age prescribed by the companies is fair and reasonable, that the Union's demand for raising the age 01 retirement is unreasonable and that tha same be rejected. It is also contended that in any event ths Tribunal should Le pleased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as requiring ihe employee to attend if so lequired by the Company, before Its doc Lor in older to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service. Similar provisions should be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical ground before • attaining the age of 58 years-

The companies have filed rejoinder at Ex. E/2 on 17th INovembcr, 1965. By this rejoinder the companies denied the allegations made Ly the Union in its written statement Ex. W/l and reiterated their stand taken in th

6. The General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay has produced a state- ment showing the existing retirement age in the companies under reference and certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns In Bombay, in all 24, at Ex. W/2. Out ol 24 companies, the retirement age in 23 companies is 80 years.

7. The companies have produced a statement at Ex. E/3 showing the age of retirement existing in certain Insurance Companies in Bombay. Another state- ment showing the retirement age existing in the companies concerned In references Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968, and CGIT-2/ll of 196& is produced at Ex. E/4. Another statement giving in- formation regarding the date on which the Government of India referred the Industrial Disputes of M/s. South British Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay and other Companies for adjudication by the Tribunal and the dates ot retrospective effect, if any agreed between the parties to the Award of the Tribunal, is produced at Ex. E/5. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/6 which gives parti- culars of workmen who retired (at age below 60) from the service of the Com- panies during the pendency of the above references.

8. Reference No. CGIT-2/3 of 1968 between the Bame parties as in Reference No. 7/68 was made to the Tribunal for adjudicating 17 demands. In those IT demands, the demand regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 had remained to be made. Hence separate reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 in respect of retire- ment age was made to tha Tribunal.

9. In reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 there is dispute Pbout 26 demands In- cluding the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and 15 companies as mentioned in Schedule I in that reference.

10. In Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands in- cluding the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between th& employees and M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.

11. In Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands in- cluding the demand refiardlng the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s. Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay.

12. In Reference No, CGIT-2/11 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including the retiiement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M / E. New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd,, Bombay

13. References Nos CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand regarding retirement age only are heard together alongwith reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968. which is in respect of retire- ment age only.

14. At the outset, it may be noted that in Referpnce No. CGIT-H/4 of 1968 between M/s. Eagle Sta*¹ Insurance Co. "Ltd., Bombay and the General Insurance Employees' Union, representing the workmen of the said company, the dispute regarding retirement age should not have been raised because as a reeult of the agreement dated £7th September, 1961, entered into between the company and the workmen, the retirement age in the company has already b^^n flyed at 60 years. This is clear from para. 30 of the written statement filed by M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Compary Ltd., Bombay on 28th Anrii, 1966, in reference No.

CGIT-2/4 of 1988 (old Reference No. CGIT-33 ol 1965 before the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Bombay).

15. The dispute regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 is between the employees and the companies invoLved in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, JG±'-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/3 of 1968 and CGIT-2/U of 1968.

', The important point for consideration is whether the demand cf the work- men in references Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGlT-2/11 of 19H8 for raising the retirement age 'rom 58 to 60 years is justified.

17. My finding on this point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:—

18. The learned advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that there Is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age at 60. In support of his contention he relies on the ruling reported in 1964, II, LLJ, Page 644 In tb^ case between Talang G.M- and others Versus Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another.

19. Shri Phadke, learned advocate for the companies contends that there is no law that In Bomnay Region the retirement age should be ilxed at 60 years.

20. It is true that there is no law which says that age of clerical and sub- ordinate staff working in Bombay Region, in various concerns should be fixed at 60 years, but there is n trend in Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of the employees at 60 years,. This trend has been recognised by various Tribunals and also by the Supreme Court of India.

21. In the case between Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd., Bombav and its workmen, reported in the 1960, IL LLJ, Page 716, where the Tribunal raised the a£e of retirement from 55 to 58, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supji'iie Court has observed that the evidence on record strongly suggests almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retire- ment at 60 and not at 56.

22. It is observed by theii Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case on page 720 as follows:—

"As this Court pointed out in the case of Dunlop Company (Supru), the recent trend in the Bombay area clearly appears to be> to fix the age of retirement at fiO That being so, we see no reason why the age of retirement of Iho workmen in the present appeal should not be similarly fixed."

23. In the rase of Talang (GM.1 and others and Shaw Wallace & Co., Ltd. and another reported in 1964, II, LLJ, Page 644, it is observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court as follows'—

"As observed in the two decisions in 1960-IT, LLJ, 716 and 1959-11, LLJ, 826 the trend in the Bombay Region us to A\ the uge of ictiiement at 60 years."

24. There could not be any doubt from the va-ious rulirws of the Supreme Court, that the Supiemo Court has recognised the trend in Bombay Region to fix the age of re+ivr-T^ent at 60 -renrr. Hence, oven thonah, them is ~o" rule or law which lays rin t C-if the a^; c¹ the eirploycp^ of Bombav J-ip^ion should be fixed at 60 yp- till the trend prevailing in. Bombay Recion flxinR the retire- ment age at 0" y ors hn? to be recoRilisicl. Hen re the contpnlion raised by Shri Phadke, learned Advocate for the companies cannot be accented.

25 The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari relics on the report of the Normus Committee, referred to jn 19C4. II, LL.T, PaRe 647 in the csse between Talang (G.M.) and another and Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd., and another. It is as follows.— "After taking into consideration the views of the earlier committees and commissions including those o£ the Second Pnv Commissions the re- port of which has been released recently we feel that the retirement ace for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60. Accordingly, the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60."

26. The opinion of thn Normus Committee referred to above clearly supports the view that the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff should be fixed at 60 years.

21, In the case between TaLang (G.M.) and others and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another. Their Lordships of Supreme Court have referred to the Pay - Commission's report, referred to in 1964, II; LLJ, Page 645. The relevant portion is as follows:—

"As has already been noticed there is no dispute that the age of compulsory retirement should not remain at 55. The dispute is whether it should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It is interesting to refer in this conne .ion, to the information that has been collected by the Pay Commit =lon (1957—59) as regards the pensionable ages prescribed under the pension Insurance schemes for employees generully or for Industrial employees and under social assistance or universal schemes In 48 countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable age is 70 In two countries, 67 in another two, 65 in twenty-four, 60 in seventeen, 55 in two and 50 in one. Thus out of 48 countries for which infonma- tlon was available it was found that in 45 countries the pensionable age was fixed at 60 or more. As the Pay Commission Report pointed out."

"This is particularly remarkable, considering that the countries differ widely in demographic constitution, levels of economic development, and c'imatic and social conditions; and it indicates a virtual unanimity of competent opinion that belonging the various factors-—physiological, economic and social—that are relevant the normal working life should continue up to the age of 60, and may well jo on up to 65 years."

28. The Supreme Court has further observed as follows:—

"It is undoubtedly more useful, however and indeed essential for our present purpose to examine the trends in this matter in our own country and specially in the region in which the present dispute has arisen. In the delicate task of adjusting needs of the employees to the interests of the employers and what is even more Important to the general interests of the country at large, industrial adjudication has to pay special attention to the prevailing practice In the industrial region concerned. If in any particular region employees have been successful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60 this very success is bound to raise in others in the region similar expecta- tions. Refusal of similar relief to them is likely to create discontent. It is the endeavour of Industrial adjudication to prevent this. That is why on questions of age of retirement and hours of work and other! slmilan matters industrial tribunals attach much weight to what has beer-, done in other Industrial concerns in the neighbourhood In recent times—whether by agreement or by adjudication."

29. The learned Advocate Shii Gidkari has relied on Ex. W/2 which Is a comparative statement showing retirement age in the companies under reference, certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bombay.

30. Out of 24 companies mentioned in the statement Ex. W/2 the retirement age is 60 In respect of 23 companies.

31. The companies have produced statement Ex. "E/4 showing the present retirement age in each company. Out of 22 companies mentioned in the Ex. E/4, retirement age in Easle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay is fiO years The retire- ment age for males In respect of Home Insurance Co. is 00 years. The retire- ment age In respect ot the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., is 58 but there is a rule under whi^h extension upto GO y?s\rs at the company'¹! dl^c^etion can be piven. Out of 19 remaining companies, the age of retirement is 55 years in the Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd. and 58 years in the lemaining 18 com- panies. Some companies have got discretion to give extension beyond 58 years.

32. As there arc 23 companies as mentioned in Kx, W/2, in which the retire- ment age of clerical ancl subordinate staff is 60 years, the employees working to the companies referred to in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1908, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 would feel dls-gruntled and dis- satisfied, if their retirement age is not raised to 60 years and if they are asked to retire before the age of 60 years. This will disturb industrial peace and create unrest and dissatisfaction amongst the employees. In order that there should be industrial peace and satisfaction among the various employees working in thin region, uniformity of retirement ape has to be maintained. In order to maintain :he same uniformity, it is absolutely necessary that the age of retirement of the

employees In the companies referred to in the above references should be f^wd at 60 years.

33. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke contends that *he companies in ques- tion are all India concerns and that changing the terms of service conditions in regard to retirement age In one place might unsettle the uniformity and might haVe serious repercussions In other branches

34. In the case between Dunlop Rubber Company (India) LrJ., aiid its workmen and-others, reported in 1959, II, LLJ; Page 826; their Lordships of Supreme Court have -observed as follows:—

"There is no doubt that in the case of an all-India concern it would be advisable to have uniform conditions of service throughout India and If uniform conditions prevail in any such concern, they should not be lightly changed. At the same time It cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, In this country at least on what is known as industry-eum-region basis and cases may arise where it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of all India concern are uniform. Besides, however, desirable uniformity may be in the case of all- India concerns, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeking that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it Is con- cerned. If therefore any scheme, which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concam, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing con- ditions in such matters, particularly in the region In which the tri- bunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen e n j o y ed in one place out of the many where the all India concern carries on business."

35. One of the important point for consideration would be that the age of retirement can be confined to Industry-cwm-region basis. It has been held that Awards a ad agreements on the question of age of retirement clearly show that there Is a consistent trend in Bombay R(\gion to fix the retirement age of Clerical and Subordinate staff at 60 years

36. As there are number of concerns In Bombav Region where the "ge of retire- ment is 60, the contention of learned Advocate Shri Phadke +hat ago of retire- ment In the companies, where the retirement ace is below 60, should not be fixed at 60 on the ground that these concerns are all India concerns; cai not be accepted. If this contention of Shri Phadke is accepted, it will create unrest, dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It will disturb ihc industrial rcoace. In the •same Region on the principle of industry-cum-region basis, disparity in ages of retirement in different concerns cannot be allowed.

37. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke tolies en the Award of Reserve Bank of India given by the Arbitrator Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Reiired Supreme Court Judge, published in the Gazette of India, dated 5th March, 1968 Part II: Section 3 (II); pages 183 to 29R.

38. It appears from the facts of the Award referred tr> nbovc that the demand of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India was to raise their retirement are to 60 years. In considering thi

39. It has been observed in paras. 18.4 and 18.5 of the Award as follows:—

"18.4. The result of the above puthorities may thus be stated: Of the several relevant factors to be taken into account >n flxinp the age of retirement, the industry-rwr.-reeion princip^ is one of the most im- portant. The weight to be given to it in an all India concern, how- ever, depends on the other far-tors and considerations. Another important factor to be taken into account is the existence of a scheme of superannuation benefits. Whe"e it is liberal, that will bo a ground for not raising the aee. On an ultimate analysis, a deci- sion on the question must Mrn on the facts and circumstances °^ each case."

"18 5. What then are the facts of this case? We start with this that in tha Bombay region, the age oi retirement for workmen i^ in general GO and that has been adopted by the commercial banks. As against this, the contention of the Bank is that it is not in the same situation as the commercial banks, that its ousiness activities and eervice condi- tions are more akin to tiio-e in the Central Government and that it is the rules in Government service that would be more appropriate and not those in commercial banks. It has been already pointod out that though the Reserve Bank docs carry on banking business, its main and substantial work is sovereign in character. Even its Danking activities ure noi comparable with those of commercial banks. Its customers are not members of public, but CentraL and Slate Gov- ernments, public bodies, commercial banks and ihe like. Apart fiom this it is under a duty to secure monetary stability and has to take decisions on policies 01 an all-India character. Moreover Its busi- ness Is largely bound up with the work of the Government and thte has led to the recruitme.it or a large number of temporary handf,, as for example, in the implementation of Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Annuity Deposit Scheme and the like. The commercial banks havo not, it is urged to face the problem of recruitment of a large nuni- ber of temporary staff which the Reserve Bank his to do in carrying, oiu the Government policies and it is argued that the unions are rather inconslstest in demanding at one breath that temporary handP should be made permanent within a year and at the same time claim- ing that the age of retirement should be raised to 60".

40. It is clear that on account of peculiar position occupied by the Reserve Bank of India and the liberal character of the superannuation benefits, the arbit- rator refused to raise the retirement age to 80. In my opinion, the facts of the case of the Reserve Bank of India employees do not compare with the iacts of this case. Further each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.

41. The companies involved in various References are Insurance Companies i.e. commercial concerns. They are concerned with public, while tho Reserve Bank of India is concerned with the Central and State Governments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like. It has no transactions with private individual.

42. Except in the case of Home Insurance Co., in reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, the ago of retirement in almost all companies is 58. In the case of Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., in reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 11)68, the retirement ago le 60 years. The Home Insurance Co. as mentioned in Ex. E/4, has got provision to give extension to its employees at its discretion, beyond 60 years. As there is •no uniformity among these companies, functioning in the same region, it is absolutely necessary to bring uniformity in the retirement age, by raising the age of retirement to 60 years

of workmen does not get impaired till about 60 years. The relevant portion In respect of this observation is as follows:—

"It is now-a-days fairly well recognised that life expectation has consider- ably increased in recent years and the rate of mortality nas fallen considerably on account of better living condition, improved medical facilities and above all the extension of educational amenities. The result is that physical efficiency of workmen generaliy speaking is not deteriorated till about 60 years. Consequently there has in the last decade been a general trend to raise the age of retirement. This 1E EO also in the case of employees in Government service and in the service of quasi-government concerns. In raising the age oi retire- ment, apart from the fact that the efficiency of workmen aoefe not get impaired till about 60 years, consideration is also paid to the fact that his needj are likely to be larger between the age of 50 and 60 years as it is during that span of life that he has to educate his children, marry his daughters and thus incur additional financial burden over and above the burden of maintenance oi his iamily."

47. The companies in reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 contend thai, if this Tribunal is inclined to Increase the retirement age to 60 it should be pjeased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as requiring the employee to attend it so re- quired by the Company, before its Doctor in orde.- to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service and that similar provisions shoui 1 be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an einp'oyee earlier on medical ground before attaining the age of 58 years. I am unable to accept the stand of the companies.

48. If the companies are given discretion to retire any employe? before the age of 58 or after 58 and before 60 years, discrimination is likely to be caused.

49. If some employees become inefficient and do not do work, the companies can take action against them for their inefficiency after holding departmental enquiry, following the rules and regulations. In my opinion, it is not necessary to make any provision as suggested by the companies to enable them to retire a person before 58 or at any time after the age of 58 and before 60 years.

50. As regards the other companies, their contention is that th^ retirement age la reasonable and that there is no case for increasing the retirement age of the employeos.

51. In view of the changed circumstances and the fact that the i^tiring age is 60 years in many concerns it cannot be said that the present retiring age in these Insurance Companies is reasonable, and fair and that there is no case for increas- ing the retirement age.

52. In all Government services the age of retirement of subordinate staiL i.e. peons etc. is 60 years, though pension scheme is provided for them and better retirement benefits are available to them.

53. In short, considering the arguments of Shri Gadkari for the employees and Shrl Phadke for the employers and having regard to the documentary evidence produced on record, T am ot the view that the retirement age of all the employee* in question should be fixed at 60 years.

54. The next point for consideration is from what date the retirement age- should be fixed at 60 years.

55. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years with retrospective effect

56. The learned Advocate Shrl Phadke for the employers on the other hand contends that the retirement age should not be fixed with -etrosperttve effect as it would create complications in the administration.

57. Generally, whenever the retirement age is fixed, it cannot be fixrd with retrospective effect. It has to be fixed with effect from a particular date.

58. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the retirement age should be fixed at flO years with effect from 30th June. 1969. At the same time, the employees who are continued in service even after their old dates of retire- ment In various companies referred to above, on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of anv extension or any reason ana who are tn service on 30th June, 1969 should continue in service till thev reach the age

of 60 years. These persons will be entitled to the benefits of leviremsnt age fixed at 60 years.

59. In view of the above findings, I pass the following order:—

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in the Group office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with elfect from JOth June, 1969. 1. The retirement age of the employees woiking in 15 companies mentioned In the Schedule I to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Order No. 74(15)/G4-LRIV dated 7th October, I9h4, Ret No. CGIT-2/2 of 1.J68 13 fixed at 60 years with elfect from' iiOth June. 1969.

3. The retirement age of the employees of the Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay fixed at 60 years under the agreement dated 27th September, 1961 entered into between the company and its workmen is to continue (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India Order No. 74(15)/64 LRTV. Pt. dated 23rd April, J9G5, Rolerence No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968).

4. The retirement age of the employees in the Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay, Is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India Order No. 74(14)/65-LRTV dated 9th September, 19613, Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968).

5. The retirement age of the employees in the New Zealand Insurance Com- pany, Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with efTect from UCth June 1969. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India Order No. 74(2)/66-LRIV dated 11th March, 1966, Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 1968). 1

8. The employeos in all the Companies referred to above, who are in service on 30th June, \d69 on any account, either on account of anv undertaking given to the Tribunal, or on account of extension, or any reason etc. should continue in service and retire at the age of 60 (alter the completion of the age of 60 years.)

7. Part 1 Awards in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, C-OIT 2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand regard- ing retirement age be made.

8. Award in respect of Reference No. CG1T-2/7 of 1968 be made. 9. No order as to costs.

(Sd.) N. K. VAOT,

Presiding Officer,

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No, 2, Bombay. [No. 72/2/68-LRIV(LRI).]

S.O. 3189.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Group Offices. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited. Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Martime Insurance Company Limited, Bombav and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 23rd July, 1969.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2 BOMBAY. REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/7 OF 1968 Employers in Relation to the Group Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay AND Their workmen

PRESENT-

Shn N. K. Vani, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers:—Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate, Shrl P. K. Rele, Solicitor and Shri S. V, Mokashi, Labour Adviser,

For the Workmen:—Shri J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Shrl Madanmohan, Vice- President All India Insurance Employees Association and Shrl K. S. B. Plllai, General Secretary, General Insurance Employees Union, Western Zone, Bombay.

TNDUSTKY: General Insurance.

STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, dated the 1st July, 1969

AWARD

By order No. 70(11)/64-LRIV dated 10th August, 1965, the Government of India, in the Ministry erf Labour, Employment and KehaDilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, *or adjudication an Industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Group offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bom- bay and theL- workmen in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule mentioned below: —

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the demand of the workmen in the group office Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Martime Insurance Company Limited for raising the retirement age from 58 to CO years is justified?

(2) If so, to what extent and from which date it should take effect?

2. Later on, by order No. 22/8/68-LRIII dated 25th November, 1968, the Central •Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

3. On 27th September, 1965, Shri K. S. B. Filial, General Secretary ol the General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay on behalf of the workmen has tiled written statement at Ex. W/l. It is contended that the existing age of retirement in the companies under reference at 58 be fixed at tfO, that the companies in question have ample capacity to pay and to bear the burden that would be lnvloved dus to this demand, that there Is consistent trend in the Bombay Hegion to fix the retirement age for clerical and subordinate staff at 60, that the Normus Committee has also expressed thp opinion that the retirement age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60, that longivity of life in the country is increasing, that the employees are keeping better health on account of medical facilities available to them, that the employees' demand for fixing the retirement agP at 60 is -justified, reasonable and modest and that the same be granted.

7. The companies have produced a statement at Ex. E/3 showing the age of retirement existing in certain Insurance Companies in Bombay. Another state- ment showing the retirement agn existing in the companies concerned in references Nos. CG1T-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968 CGIT-2/8 of 1968, and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 is produced at Ex. E/4. Another statement giving inlor- mation regarding the date on which the Government of India referred the Indus- trial Disputes of M/s South British Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay and other Companies for adjudication by the Tribunal aud the dates of retrospective eifect, if any agreed between the parlies to the Award of the Tribunal, is produced at Ex. E/5. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/6 which gives particulars of workmen who retired (at age below 60) irom the service of the Companies during the pendency of the above references.

8. Reference No, CGIT-2/3 of 19fl8 between the same parties as in Reference No. 7/68 was made to the Tribunal for adjudicating 17 demands. In those 17 demands, the demand regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 had remained to be made. Hence separate reference No." CG1T-2/7 of 1968 In respect of retirement age was made to the Tribunal.

9. In reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 there is dispute about 20 demands including the demand regarding retirement at?e (Demand No. 11) between the •employees and 2 5 companies as mentioned in Schedule I In that reference.

10. In Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands Including the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the •employees and M/s Eagle Star Insurance Co. .Ltd,

11. In Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968 there Is dispute about 26 demands Including the demand regarding the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay.

12. In Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands Including the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s Uew Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay.

13. References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand regarding retirement age only are "heard together alongwith reference No. CGIT-2/1 of 1968, which Is in respect of retirement age only.

14. At the outset it may be noted that in Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 between M/s Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay and the General Insurance Employee¹;' Union, representing the workmen of the said company, the dispute regarding retirement age should not have been raised because as a result of the agreement dated. 27th September, 1961 entered into between the company and the workmen, the retirement age In the company has already been fixed at 60 years. This is clear from para, no of the written statement l)'ed by M/s Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd., Bombay on 2flth April, ]9f6 in reference No. CGIT-2/4 of lfifia fold Reference No. CGIT-3!! cf 19G5 before the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal, Bombay).

15. The dispute regarding raising the aije of retirement to 60 Is beiween the employees aj:)d thp romnpnips invn^'od in TJuferpnmc Kfos. CGTT-2/2 of 19fl8, CGIT- 2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968.

16. The important point for consideration 1s whether the demand of the workmen in references Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 19fi8 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 for raising the retirement age from 50 to 60 years is justified.

17. My finding on this point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: —

18. The learned advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that there is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement ape at 60. In sup- Twrt of his contention he relies on the ruling reported m 1964, II, LLJ, Papje 644 In the case between Talang G.M. and others Versus Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another.

19. Shri Phadke. learned advocate for the companies nontends that there la no law that in Bombay Region the- retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

20. It is true that there is no law which says that age of clerical and subordi- nate staff working in Bombay Region, in various concern? shouM be fixed at 60 years, but there is a trend in Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of the

employees at 60 years. This trend has been recognised by various Tribunals and also by the Supreme Court of India.

21. In the case between Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd., Bombay and its workmen, reported in the I960, II. LJLJ, Page 716, where the Tribunal raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has observed that the evidence on rocord strongly suggests almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retirement at 60 and not at 55.

22. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above men- tioned case on page 720 as follows; —

"As this Court pointed, out in the case of Dunlop Company (Supra), the recent trend m the Bombay area clearly appears to be to fix the age of retirement at 60. That being so, we see no reason why the age of retirement of the workmen in the present appeal should not be similar .y fixed."

23. In the case of Talang (G.M.) and others and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. and another, reported in 1984, II, LLJ, page 644, it is observed by their lordships erf Supreme Court as follows: —

"As observed in the two decisions In 1960-11, LLJ, 716 and 1959-11, LLJ, 826 the trend in the Bombay Region Is to fix the age of retirement at 60 years "

24. There could not be any doubt from the various rulings of the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court has recognised the trend in Bombay Region to fix the age of retirement at 60 years. Hence, even though, there is no rule or law which lays down that the ago of the employees of Bombay Region should be fixed at 60 years, stil' the trend prevailing in Bombay Region fixing the retire- ment age at 60 years has to be recognised. Hence the contention raised by Shri Phadke, learned Advocate for the companies cannot bo accepted.

25. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkart relies on the report of the Normus Committee, referred to in 1964. II, LLJ, Page 647 in the case between Talanjr (G.M.) and another and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another. It is as follows: — "After taking into consideration the views of the earlier committees and commissions including those of the Second Pay Commissions the report of which has been released recent]-/, we feel that the retire- ment age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60. Ac- cordingly, the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60."

26. The opinion of the Normus Committee referred to above clearly supports the view that the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff shnuld be fixed at 60 years.

27. In the case between Talanff (G M ) and others and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.. and another, Their Lordships of Supreme Court have referred to the Pay Commission's report, referred to in 1964, II, LLJ, Page 645 The relevant portion is as follows: —

"As has already been noticed, there is no dispute thnt the age of compul- sory retirement should not remain at 55 The dispute is whether it should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It Is interesting to refer in this connection to the information that has been collected by the Pay Commission (1057—59) as regards the pensionable ages prescribed under the pension Insurance schemes for employees generally or for Industrial emplovoes and under social assistance or universal schemes in 48 countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable age is 70 in two countries: 67 in another two; 65 in twenty-four, 60 in seventeen, 5^ in two and 50 in one. Thus out of 48 countries'for which informal ion was available- it was found that in 45 countries the pensionable fiste WRS fWed at 60 or more. Ag the Pay Com- mission Report pointed out—

'This is nnrtirularlv remarkable, ^omidermc that the countries differ widely in demographic constitution levels of economic deve'opment.

and climatic and social conditions; and it indicates a virtual unani- mity of competent opinion that balancing the various faotors—physi- ological, economic and social—that are relevant the normal work- ing life should continue up to the age of 60, and may well go on up to 65 years,"

28. The Supreme Court has further observed as follows -.—

' It is undoubtedly more useful, however and indeed essential for our present purpose to examine the trends in this matter in our own country and specially in the region in which the present dispute has arisen. In the dolicAic task of adjusting needs of the employees to the interests of the employers and what is even more important to the general interests of the country at large, Industrial adjudica- tion has io pay special attention to the pievaiiing practice m the industrial region concerned. If in any particular region employees have been successful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60 this very SUCCVSJ is bouni to raise in others in the region simi- lar expectations. Refusal of similar relief to them is likely to create discontent. It is the endeavour of industrial adjudication to pre- vent this. That is why or, questions of age of retirement and hours of work and other similar matters industrial tribunals attach much weight to what has been done in other industrial concerns in the neighbourhood in recent times—whether by agreement or by adjudi- cation."

29. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari has relied on Ex. W/2 which is a comparative statement showing retirement age in the companies under reference, certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bombay.

30. Out of 24 companies mentioned in the statement Ex. W/2 the retirement age is 60 in respect of 23 companies.

31. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/4 showing the present re- tirement age in each company. Out of 22 companies mentioned in the Ex. E/4, retirement age in Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay is 60 years. The retire- ment age for males in respect of Home Insurance Co. Is 80 years. The retire- ment age in respect of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., is 58 but there is a ru'e under which extension upto 60 years at the company's discretion can be given Out of 19 remaining companies, the ago of retirement is 55 years in the Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, and 58 years in the remaining 18 com- panies. Some companies have got discretion to give extension beyond 58 years.

32. As there are 23 companies as mentioned in Ex. W/2, in which the retire- ment age of clerical and subordinate staff is fiO years the employees working in the companies referred to in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 would feel disgruntled and dis-satis- fled, if their retirement age is not raised to 60 years and if they are asked to retire before the age of 60 years. This will disturb industrial peace and creatn unrest, and dis-satisfaetion amongst the employees. In order that there should be indus- trial peace and satisfaction among the various employees working in this region, uniformity of retirement age has to be maintained. In order to maintain the samp uniformity, it is absolutely necessary that the age of retirement of the employees in the companies referred to in the above references should be fixed at 60 years.

33. Thf learned Advocate Shri Phadke contends that the companies in ques- tion arp all India concerns and tint changing the terms of service conditions in regard to retirement a"e in one place might unsettle the uniformity and might have serious repercussions in other branches.

it may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of ail India concern are uniform. liesides, however, desirable uniformity may be m the case of all- India concerns, the tribunal cannot ubstam from seeking that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which it is con- cerned. If therefore any scheme, which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to bo unfair and not m accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing conditions m such matters, particularly in the region in which the tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out of the many where the all India concern carrier on busi- ness."

35. One of the important point for consideration would be that the age of -•retirement can be confined to industry-cwm-rcgion basis. It has been held that Awards and agreements on the question of age of retirement clearly show that there is a consistent trend in Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of Clerical and Subordinate staff at 60 years.

36. As there are number of concerns in Bombay Hegion where the age of retire- ment is 60, the contention of learned Advocate Shri Phadke that age of retirement In the companies, where the retirement age is below 60, should not be fixed at 60 "on the ground that these concerns are all" India concerns; cannot toe accepted. If this contention of Shri Phadke is accepted, it will create unrest, dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It will disturb the industrial peace. In the same Region on the principle of industry-cum-region basis, disparity in ages of retirement in ^diffeient concerns cannot be allowed.

37. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke relies on the Award of Reserve Bank of India given by the Arbitrator Shri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Retired Supreme Court Judge, published "In the Gazette of India, dated 5th March 1988, Part II; Section 3 (il), pages 183 to 298-

38- It appears from the facts of the Award referred to above th^i the demand of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India was to raise their retirement age to 60 years In considering this demand all previous Supreme Court rujiags have been considered. The Arbitrator refused to raise the ago of retirement having regard to the special position occupied by the Re&erve Bank oi India as dk'met from com- .mercial concerns and liberal character of superannuation benefits.

39. It has been observed in paras. 13.4 and 18-.r) of the Award as follows. --

'18.4. The result of the ahove authorities may thus be sUt"il. Of the Hevcral relevant factors to be taken into ,if"ount in fixing th-j uf.f oi r^ire- ment, the industry-ciwn-reglon principle is one of the mo.t hr \

"18 5 What then are the facts of this case? We start with this that in the Bombay region, the age of retirement for woikmen i-- in general 60 and that has been adoDted by the commercial banks. As against this, the contention of the Bank is that It Is not in the same situation f-s the commercial banks, that its business activities and servicr conditions are more akin to those In the Central Government and tbot it is the rules in Government service that would be more anoroprjati and not those In commercial banks. It has been already pointed out that though the Reserve Bank does carry on banking business. Its main and substantial work is sovereign in character. Even Its banking activities are not comparable with those of commercial banks. Its customers are not members of public, but Central and State Governments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like. Apart from thi-., it is under a duty to secure monetary stability and has to take decisions on policies of an all-India character. Moreover Its business JH largely bound up with the work ol the Government and this has led to the recruitment

Of a large number of temporary hands, as for exa-mle, in the imple- mentation of Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Annuity Deposit Scheme and the like- The commercial banks have not, it is urg-ed to face the pro- blem of recruitment of a large number of temporal y staff which the Reserve Bank has to do in carrying out the Government policies and it Is argued that the unions are rather inconsistent in demanding at one breath that temporary hands should be made permanent within a year and at the same time claiming that the age of retirement should be raised to 60".

40. It is clear that on account ol peculiar position occupied by tha Rescrv^,,Bank of India and the liberal character of the superannuation bencnts, tbc arbitrator refused to raise the retirement age to 60- In my opinion, the facts of the case ol the Reserve Bank of India employees do not compare with the fac1=, of this case- Further each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.

41- The companies involved in various References are Insurance Companies i.e. commercial concerns. They are concerned with public, while the Reserve Bank of India is concerned with the Central and State Governments, public bodies, com- mercial tanks and the like. It has no transactions with private individual.

42. Except in the case of Home Insurance Co-, in reference No- CGIT-2/2 of 1968, the age of retirement in almost all companies is 58. In the case of Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., in reference No CGIT-2/4 of 1968, the retirement age is 60 years. The Home Insurance Co. as mentioned in Ex E/4, has got provision to give extension to its employees at its discretion, beyond 60 years. As thore is no uni- formity among these companies, functioning in the same region, it is absolutely necessary to bring uniformity m the retirement age, by raising the age o£ retire- ment to 60 years.

43. In the Reference before me the employees arc not satisfied with the existing superannuation benefits and other benefits to which they are entitled. They have got a grievance regarding different aees of retirement m different companies. Except in the Home Insurance Co. there is no pension scheme in any other companies. Even though there is pension scheme, the Home Insurance Company gives extension to their employees beyond 60 years. As no pension scheme has been provided by other companies, there is justification for the employees' claim that their retirement age should be raised and fixed at 60 years.

44. The learned Advocate Shrl Phadke says that wherever, the retirement age is 60, it should be maintained at 60 and wherever the retirament age is less, it mnv not be taken beyond 58. I am unable to accept tha contention of Shrl Phadke that wherever the retirement age is less it should not be raised beyond 58 years.

45. In Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968, the employers contend that the retire- ment age prescribed by these companies is fair and reasonable, that there is no case for increasing the retirement age and that the same be not increased because the efficiency of the clerical staff declines from the age of 55 years and because the value of the service by such employees rapidly declines in relation to their emolu- ments. This contention raised by the employers cannot be accepted.

46. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Cuurt in Civil Appeal No. 845 of 1966 in the case between the workmen of Kcttlewell Bullcn & Co. Ltd,, and the KettleweU Bullen & Co. Ltd., dated 12th February 19G9 that the efficiency of workmen does not get impaired till about 00 years. The relevant portion in respect of this observation is as follows:—•

"It is now-a-days fairly well recognised that life expectation has considerably increased in recent years and the rate of mortality has fallen con- siderably on account of better living condition, Improved medical facilities and above all the extension of educational amenities. The result is that physical efficiency of workmen generally speaking is not determined till about 60 years. Consequently there has in the lpst decade been a general trend to raise the age of retirement. This is so also in the case of employees In Government service and in the service of quasi-government concerns. In raising the age of retirement apart from the fact that the efficiency of workmen does not get impaired till about 60 years, considerations is also paid to the fact that his needs are likely to be larger between the age of 50 and 60 years as it Is during that span of life that he has to educate his children, marry his daughters and thus incur additional financial burden over and above the burden of maintenance ef his family."

47. The companies In reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 contend that if this Tribunal ia inclined to increase the retirement age to 60 it should be pleased to- , prescribe adequate safeguards such as reguiring the employee tc attend if so required by the Company, before its Doctor hi order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service and that similar provisions should be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical gTound before attaining the age of 58 years. I am unable to accept the stand ol the companies.

48. If the companies are given discretion to retire any employee before the age of 58 or after 58 and before 60 years, discrimination is likely to be caused.

49. rf'some employees become inefficient and do not do work, the companies can take action against them for their inefficiency after holding departmental enquiry, following the rules and regulations. In my opinion. It is not necessary to make any provision as suggested by the companies to enable them to retire a person before 58 or at any time after the agef of 58 and before 60 years.

50. As regards the other companies, their contention is that the retirement age is reasonable and that there is no case for increasing the retirement age of the • employees.

51. In view of the changed circumstances and the fact that the retiring age is 60 years in many concerns it cannot be said that the present retiring age in these Insurance Companies is reasonable and fair and that there is no case for increasing the retirement age.

52. In all Government services the age of retirement of subordinate staff, i.e., peons etc., is 60 years, though pension scheme is provided for them and better retirement benefits are available to them.

5H. In short, considering the arguments of Shri Gadkari for the employees and Shri Phadke for the employers and having regard to the documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the view that the retirement age of all ihe employees in question should be fixed at 60 years.

54. The next point for consideration is from what date the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

55. The learned Advocate Shri Gadhari for the employees contends that the re- tirement age should be fixed at 60 years with retrospective effect

56. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke for the employers on the other hand con- tends that the retirement age should not be fixed with retrospective effect as it would create complications Jn the administration.

57. Gennerally, whenever the retirement age is fixed, it cannot be fixed with retrospective effect. It has to be fixed with effect from a particular date.

58 For the reasons givan above, I am of the view that the retirement Kge should be fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969. At the same time, the employees who are continued in service even after their old dates of retirement In various companies referred to above, on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of any extension or any reason and who are in service on 30th June 1969 should continue in service till they reach the age of 00 years. These "persons will be entitled to the benefits of retirement age fixed at 60 years

59. In view of the above findings, I pass the following order: —

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in the Group Office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company .Limited, Bombay Is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

2. The retirement age of 1he employees working in 15 companies mention- ed in the Schedule I to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Order No, 74(15)/64-LRIV dated 7th October 1964, Ref. No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

3 The retirement age of the employees of the Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay fixed at 60 years under the agreement dated 27th August 1961 entered Into between the company and its workmen is to continue. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India Order No. 74(15)/, 64-LHIV Pt. dated 23rd April 1965, Reference No. CGIT-2/4, of 1968).

4. The retirement age of the employees in the Atlas Assurance Compart* Limited, Bombay, is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 19Wt (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India Order No. 74(14J 65-LRJV dated 9th September 1965, Relerence No. CGIT-2/8 of 1988). 5. The retirement age of the employees in the New Zealand Insurance Com- pany, Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Order No. 74(2)7 66-LRIV dated 11th March 1960, Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 1968).

8. The employees in all the Companies referred to above, who are in service on 30th June I960 on any account, either on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal, or on account of extension, or any reason etc. should continue in service and retire at the age of 60 (after the completion of the age oi 60 years.)

7. Part I Awards in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1966, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand regarding retirement age be made,

8. Award In respect of Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 be made. 9. No order as to costs.

(Sd.) N. K. VANI,

Presiding OfficeT,

Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay. [No. 70(ll)/64-LRIV (LRl).O

S.O. ai90.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 *of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the •Central tfovernment Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay, in the industrial dispute ;• between the employers in relation to the At'as Assurance Company Limited> Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 23rd July, 1969,

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2,

BOMBAY.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/8 OF 1968

Employers in relation to M/s. Atlas Assurance Company Ltd.,

AND

Their workmen.

"PRESENT:

Shri N. K. Vani, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers—Shvi N. V. Phadke, Advocate Shri P. K. Rele, Solicitor and Shri S. V. Mokuihi, Labour Adviser.

For the workmen—Rhri J. G. Ga-dkari, Advocate Shri Madan Mohan, Vice- President, All India Insurance Employees' Association and Skri K. S. B. Filial, General Secretary, Genera] Insurance Emp'oyees' Union, Western Zone, Bombay.

INDUSMY; Genera] Insurance.

S T A T E: Maharashtra.

Bombay, dated the 1st July, 1969

AWABD

IndSS rWheprM°ni India, in the Ministry of Labour and Employment referred to the Central f r ^ r™

2. Out of 26 demands mentioned in the Schedule, demand No. 11 is as follows^- "XL Retirement Age

"The age of retirement of an employee shall be 60 years."

3. Later on by Order No. 22/8/68-LRIII dated 25th November 1968, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2 for adjudication.

4. The facts of this case in respect of demand No. 11 regarding Retirement Age are mentioned in detail m Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968.

5. For reasons given in my judgment in reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 on. the demand regarding retirement age, I fix the retirement age of the employees- working in this company at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

6. The employees who are continued in service even after their old dates of retirement on any account and who are in service on 30th June 1069 should con- tinue in service till they reach and complete the age of 60 years. These persons will be entitled to the benefits of retirement age fixed at 60 years.

7. In view of the above finding, I pass the fallowing order: —

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in this company is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June 1969.

2. The employees who are In service on 30th June 1969 on any account (either on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of extension etc.) should continue in service and retire after the completion of 60 years.

3. Award Part I in respect of retirement age is made. 4. A copy of the judgement in Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 is to form part of this Award.

5. No order as to costs.

'

(Sd.) N. K. VANI, Presiding Officer,

Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal,. No. 2, Bombay.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL'TRIBUNAL NO 2

BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/7 or 1968

Employers in relation to the Group Offices. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd.. Bombay.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT:

Shri N. K. Vani, Presiding Officer,

APPEARANCES :

For the Emplo'-"rs.—Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate, Shri P. K, Rele. Solicitor and Shri S. V. Mokashi, Labour Adviser.

For the Workmen.—Shri J. G. Gadltari, Advocate. Shri Madanmohan. Vice- President All India Insurance Employees Association, and Shri K. S, B. PiFai. 'General Secretary. General Insurance Employees Union, Western Zone, Bombay,

INDUSTRY: General Insurance.

STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, dated the 1st July. 1969

AWARD

By order No- 7O(ll)/04-LRIV, dated 10th August 1965, the Government of India, in the Ministrv of Labour, Employment nt)d Rehabilitation (Department of

Labour and Employment) referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Group offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Com- pany Limited, Bombay und their workmen in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule mentioned below: —

SCHEDULE

1,1) Whether the demand of the workmen in the group office Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insu- rance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited for rais- ing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years is justified?

(2) If so, to what, extent and from which date it should take effect?

3. On 27th September 1965, Shri K. S. B. Pillai, General Secretary of the General Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

3- On 27th September 1965, Shri K. S. B. Pillai, General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay on behalf of the workmen has filed written statement at Ex. W/l. It is contended that the existing age of retirement in the companies under reference at 58 be fixed at 60, that 1he companies in question have ample capacity to pay and to bear the burden that would be involved due to this demand, that there is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age for clerical and subordinate staff at 60, that the Normus Committee has also expressed the opinion that the retirement age for workmen in all indus- tries should be fixed at 60, that longivity of life in the country is increasing, that the employees are keeping better health on account of medical facilities available to them, that the employees' demand for fixing the retirement age at 60 is justified, reasonable and modest and that the same be granted.

4. The employee in relation to the group office, Norwtoh Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd., Scottish Union and National Insurance Co. and Maritime Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay i.e. the Insurance Companies concerned in this reference (here- inafter referred to as 'the companies') have filed written statement at Ex. E/l on 21st September 1965. It is contended that the past experince shows that the effi- ciency of the- clerical staff declines from the age of 55, that the value of the ser- vices of such employees rapidly decline in relation to their emoluments, that the retirement age prescribed by the companies is fair and reasonable, that the Union's demand for raising the age of retierment is unreasonable and that the same be rejected. It is also contended that in. any event the Tribunal should be pleased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as requiring the employee to attend if so required by the Company, before its doctor in order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service. Similar provisions should be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical ground before at- taining the age of 58 years.

5. The companies have filed rejoinder at Ex, E/2 on 17th November 1965. By this rejoinder the companies denied the allegations made by the Union in its written statement Ex. W/l and reiterated their stand taken in the written statement Ex. E/l.

6. The General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay has produced a state- ment showing the existing retirement age in the companies under reference and certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bombay, in all 24, at Ex, W/2. Out of 24 companies, the retirement age in 23 companies is 60 years.

7. The companies have produced a statement at Ex. E/3 showing the age of retirement existing in certain Insurance Companies in Bombay. Another state- ment showing the retirement age existing in the companies concerned in reference Noa. CGIT12/2 of 1968. CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968, and, CGIT-2/11 of 1968 is produced at Ex, E/4. Another statement giving information regarding the date on which the Government of India referred the Industrial Dis- putes of Ms, South British Insurance Co. Ltd. Bombay and other Companies for adjudication by the Tribunal and the dates of retrospective effect, if anv agreed between the parties to the Awara of the Tribunal, is produced at Ex. E/5. The companies have produced statement Ex. B/6 which gives partculars of workmen who retired (at age below 60) from the service of the Companies during the pendency of the above references.

8. Beference No. CGIT-2/3 of 1968 between the same parties as In Referegfee No. 7/68 was made to the Tribunal for adjudicating 17 demands. In these 17 demands, the demand regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 had remained to foe made. Hence separate reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 in respect of retire- ment age was made to the Tribunal.

9. In reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and 15 companies as mentioned in Schdule I in that reference.

10. In Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including the demand regarding retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.

11. In Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968 there is dispute about 29 demands including the demand regarding the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s. Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay.

12. In Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees and M/s. New Zealand Insurance Co, Ltd., Bombay.

13. Reference Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1958 in respect of demand regarding retirement age only are heard together alongwith reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1368, which is in respect of retire- ment age only.

14. At the outset, it may be noted that in Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1988 between M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay and the General Insurance Employees' Union, representing the workmen of the said company, the dispute regarding retirement age should not have been raised because as a result of the agreement, dated 27th September 1961, entered into between the company and the workmen, the retirement age in the company has already been fixed at 60 years This is clear from para. 30 of the written statement filed by M/s Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd Bombay on 28th April 1966, in reference No. CGIT-2/4 o f, K⁹^ ( o ld R"ference No. CGIT-33 of 1965 Ibefore the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal, Bombay).

15. The dispute regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 is between the employees and the companies involved in Reference Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT- 2/7 of' 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 196# and CGIT-2/11 of 1968.

16. Th important point for consideration is whether the demand of the work- man in references Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 196& and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 for raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years is justified.

17. My finding on this point ig in the affirmative for the following reasons:—

18. The learned advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that there is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age at 60. In support of his contention he relies on the ruling reported in 1964, II, LLJ, Page 644 in the case between Talang G.M. and others Versus Shaw "Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another.

19. Shri Phadke, learned advocate for the companies contends that there is no law that in Bombay Region the retirement age should be fixed st 60 years.

20. It is true that there Is no law which says that age of clerical and subordinate staff working in Bombay Region, in various concerns should be fixed &t 60 years, but there is a trend In Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of the employees at 60 years. This trend has been recognised by various Tribunals and also tay the Supreme Court of India.

21. In the case between Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd., Bombay and Its workmen, reported In the 1960, II, LLJ; Page 716; where the Tribunal raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58; both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has observed that the evidence on record strongly suggests almost a uniform tendency In Bombay to fix the ago of retirement at 60 and not at 55.

/

22. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case on page 720 as follows:—

"As this Court pointed out in the case of Dunlop Company (Supra)- the recent trend in the Bombay area clearly appears to be to flu' the

age oi retirement at 60. That being so, we see no reason why Hie age of retirement of the workmen m the piesent appeal hnould not be similarly fixed.'

23. In the case of Talang (G.M.) and others and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., and another, reported in 1964, II; LLJ; page 644;, it is observed by their Lord- ships of Supreme Court as to, lows:—

"As observed in the. two decisions m 19oO—II; LLJ; 716 tuiu U'59 —11; LLJ, 826 the treUv in the Bombay Region is lo fix The age cf retirement at 60 years.

24. There could not be any doubt from the various rulings of the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court has recognised the trend in Bombay Region to fix the age of retirement at 60 years. Henco, eventhough; there is no rule or law which lays down that the age ol the employees of Bombay Region should be fixed at 60 yearn, still the trend prevailing in Bombay Region fixing the retirement age at BO years has to be recognised. Hence the contention raised by Shri Phadke, learned Advocate for the companies' cannot be accepted.

25. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari relies on the repoit of the Normus Committee, referred to in 1994, II, LLJ, Page G47, in the case between Talang (G,M.) and another and Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd,, and another. It is as iollows:—• "After tsking into consideration the views of the earlier committee and commissions including those of the Second Pay Commissions the re port of which has been released recently; we feel tnut the retirement age for workmen in ail industries should be fixed at 60. Accordingly, the norm for retirement age is fixed ut 60,"

26. The opinion of the Normus Committee referred to above clearly supports the view that the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff should be fixed at 60 years.

27. In the case between Talang (G.M.) and others and Shaw \\ allace & Co. Ltd., and another, Their Lordships of Supreme Court have leieu-ed to the Pay Commissioner's report, referred to in 1984, II, LLJ, Page 645. The relevant portion is as follows:—

"As has already been noticed, there is no dispute that the age of compulsory retirement should not remain at 55. The dispute is whether It should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It is interesting to refer in this connexion to the information that has been collected by the Pay Commission (1957-—59) as regards the pensionable ages prescribed under the pension Insurance schemes for employees generally or for Industrial employees and under social assistance or universal schemes in 48 countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable age is 70 In two countries; 67 in another two; 65 in twenty-four; 60 in seventeen; 55 in two and 50 in one. Thus out of 48 countries for which information was available it was found that in 45 countries the pensionable age was fixed at 60 or more. As the Pay Commis- sion Report pointed out—

"This is particularly remarkable, considering that the countries differ widely in demographic constitution, levels of economic development, and climatic and social conditions; and it indicates a virtual unanimity of competent opinion that balancing the various factors—physiological, economic and social—that are relevant the normal working life should continue up to the age of 60, and may we]] go on up to 65 years."

28. The Supreme Court has further observed as follows: —

"It is undoubtedly more useful, however and indeed essential for our present purpose to examine the trends in this matter in our own country and specially In the region in which the present dispute has arisen. In the delicate task of adjusting needs of the employees to the Interests ofj the employers and what is even more important to the general inte- rests of the country at large, industrial adjudication has to pay special attention to the prevailing practice in the industrial region concerned. If in any particular region employees have been successful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60 this very success is bound to raise in others in thf. region similar expectations. Refusal ol similar relief to them is likely to create discontent. It Is the endeavour of industrial adjudication to prevant this. That is why on questions

of age of retirement and hours of work and other similar matters in- dustrial tribunals attach much weight to. what has been done in other industrial concerned in the neighbourhood in recent times—whether by agreement or by adjudication.",

2tl. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari has relied on Ex. W/2 which Is a com- perative statement showing retirement age in the companies under reference, cer- tain other insurance companies and commercial concerns .in Bombay.

30. Out of 24 cempanies mentioned in the statement Ex. W/2 the retirement age Is 6(1 respect o* 23 companies.

31. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/4 showing the present retire- ment age In each company. Out ol 22 companies mentioned in the Ex.E/4, retire- ment age In Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay is 60 years. The retirement age for males in respect of Home Insurance Co. is 60 years. The retirement age in rcipect of the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., is 58 but there is a rule under which extension upto 60 years at the company's discretion can be given. Out of 19 remaining companies, the age of retirement is 55 years in the Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd., and 58 years in the remaining 18 companies. Some com- panies have got discretion to give extension beyond 58 years.

32. As there are 23 companies as mentioned in Ex. W/2; in which the retire- ment age of clerical and subordinate staff is 60 years, the employees working In the companies referred to in Beferences Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 would feel disgruntled and dissatisfied, li their retiiement age is not raised to GO years and if they aie naked to retire before the age of 60 years. This will disturb Industrial peace ar>d <- -eate unrest, and dis satisfaction amongst the employees. In order that there should t/e Indus- trial peace and satisfaction among the various employees working In this region, uuiiormlty ol retirement age has to be maintained. In order ^o maintain the same uniformity, it is absolutely necessary that the age of retirement of the employees In the companies referred to in the above references should be fixed at d0 years.

33. The ltarned Advocate Shri Phadke contends that the rompanJes in question are all India concerns and that changing the terms of service conditions in regard to retirement age in one place might unsettle the uniformity tind might have serious repercussions in otlv r branches.

34. In the case between Dunlop Rubber Corhpany (India Ltd., and its work- men and others, reported in 1959, II, LLJ, Page H26, their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as follows:—

in the companies, whe^e the retirement age is below 60, should, not be tixed at 60 on the ground that these concerns are all India concerns; can not be accepted. If this contention oi Shn PhadKe is accepted, it will create unrest, dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It will disturb the industrial peace. In the same Region on the principle of industry-eum-region basis diparity in ages of retirement in different concerns cannot be allowed.

37. The learned Advocate Shn. Phadke relies on the Award of Reserve Bank of India given by the Arbitrator Shn T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Retired Supreme Court Judge, published In the Gazette of India, dated 5th March, 1968. Part II, Section 3(ii;. pases 183 to 298.

38. It appears from the facts of the Award referred to above that the demand of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India was to raise their retirement age to 60 years. In considering this demand all previous Supreme Court rulings have been considered. The Arbitrator refused to raise tnc age of retirement having regard, to the special position occupied by the Reserve Bank of India us distinct from commercial concerns and liberal character of superannuation benefits.

39. It has been observed in paras. 18.4 and 18.5 of the Award as follows: —

"18.4. The result of the above authorities may thus be stated: Of the several relevant factors to be taken into account in fixing the ace of retire- ment the industry-cum-region principle is one of the rr.ost important. The weight to be given to it in an all India concern, however, depends on the other factors and considerations. Another important factor to be taken into account is the existence of u scheme oi super- annuation benefits. Where it is liberal, that will be a ground for not raising the age. On an ultimate analysis, a decision on the question must turn on the facts and circumstances of each case.''

'•18,5. What then are the facts of this case? We start with this that in the Bombay region, the age of retirement for workmen is in general 60 and that has been adopted by the commercial banks. As against this, the contention of the Bank is that it is not in the same situation as the commercial banks, that its business acTivities and service condition; are more akin to those in the Central Government and that it is the rules In Government service that would be more appropri- ate and not those in commercial banks. It has been aueady pointed out that though the Reserve Bank does carry on banking business, its main and substantial work is sovereign in character. Even its banking activities are not comparable with those of commercial bank.s. II^ customers are not members of public, but Central and State Govern- ments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like. Apart from this, it :s under a duty to secure monetary stability and has to take decisions on policies of an all-India character. Moreover its business is largely bound up with the work of the Government and this has led to the recruitment of a large number of temporary hands, as for example, in the implementation of Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Annuity Deposit Scheme and the like. The commercial banks have not, it is urged to face the problem of recruitment of a large number of temporary staff which the Reserve Bank has to do in carrying out the Government policies and it is argued that Lhe unions are rather inconsistent in demanding at one breath that temporary hands should be made permanent within a year and at the 3ame time claiming that the age of retirement should be raised to GO."

40. It is clear that on account of peculiar position occupied by the Reserve Bank of India and the liberal character of the superannuation benefits, the arbi- trator refused to raise the retirement age to 60. In my opinion, the facts of the case of the Reserve Bank of India employees do not compare with the facts of this case. Further each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.

41. The comnrmies involved in various References are Insurance Companies i.e., commercial concerns. They are concerned with Dublic, while the Reserve Bank of India is concerned with the Central and State Governments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like. It has no transactions with private in- dividual.

42. Except in the case of Home Insurance Co, in reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 19fl8, the a£e of retirement in almost all companies is 56. In the case of Eagle

Star Insurance Co., Ltd., in reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968, the retirement atfe is 60 years. The Home Insurance Co. as mentioned in Ex. E/4, has got provision to give extension to its employees at its discretion, beyond 60 years. As there is no uniformity among these companies, functioning in the same region, it Is absolutely necessan to bring uniformity in the retirement age, by raising the age ot retirement to 60 years

4;j. In the References before me the employees are not satisfied with the exis- ting superannuation benefits and other benefits to which they are entitled. They have got a grievance regarding different ages of retirement in dillcrent companies. Except in the Home Insurance Co. there is no pension scheme in any other companies. Even though there is pension scheme, the Home Insurance Company giv^s extension to their employees beyond 60 years. As no oension scheme has been provided by other companies, there is justification for the employees' claim that their letirement age should be raised and fixed at 60 years.

44, Tne learned Advocate Shri Phadke says that wherever, the retirement age is 60, it should be maintained at 60 and wherever the retirement aae is less, it may not be taken beyond 58. I am unable to accept the contention of Shri Phadke that wherever the retirement age is less it should j;Ot be raised beyond 58 years.

45. In Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1.908, the employers contend that the retire- ment age prescribed by these companies is fair and reasonaole, that there Is no case for increasing the retirement age and that the same be not increased because the efficiency of the clerical staff declines from the ago of 55 years and because the value of the service by such employees rapidly declines in relation to their emolu- ments This contention raised by the employers cannot be accepted.

48. It is ol'icrved by their Lo •dship.s of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 845 of 19*36 in the case between the workmen of Kettlewe'l Bullen & Co. .Ltd. and the Kettlewell Sullen & Co., Ltd . dated 12th February, 1969, that the elllclen- cy of workmen does not get impaired till about 60 years. The relevant portion in respect of Lhls observation is as follows:—•

"It is now a-daya fairly well recognised that life expectation has consider- ably increased in recent years and the rate of mortality has fallen considerably on account of better living" condition, improved medical facilities and above all the extension of edcuational amenities. The result is that physical efficiency of workmen generally speaking is not deteriorated till about 60 years. Consequently there has in the last decade been a general trend to raise the age of retirement. This is so also in the case of employees in Government service and in the service of quasi-Kovernment concerns. In raising the age of retire- ment, apart from the fact that the efficiency of workmen does not get impaired till ahout 60 years, considerations Is also paid to the fact that his ne^ds are likely to bo larger between the age of 50 and (50 years as it is during that span of life that he has to educate his children, marry his daughters and thus incur additional financial burden over and above the burden of maintenance of his family"

47. The companies in reference No. CGTT-2/7 <>r 1968 contend thai if this Tri- bunal is inclined to increase the retirement age to 60 it should be pleased to prescribe sdcquatp siletniards such ;KC requiring the omp'oyec to attend if so required by the Company, before its Dortor in order to certify Ihe fitness of the enroloypf to continue in service and that similar provisions should be prescribed to cermit the Comoanies to retire an emnlovpe earlier on medical ground before attaining the as?e of 5fl vpnrs. I a-~M unablr to accept the stand of the companies

4ft. If the companies are given discretion to retire any employee before the age Qf 58 or alter 58 and before HO year.-, c'iscrimination is likely to be caused.

49. If some employees become inefficient and do not do work, the companies can tuke action against them for their inefficiency alter holding: departmental enquiry, following the rules and regulations. In my opinion it is not necessary to make eny provision as suggested by the companies to enable them to retire a person before 58 or al any time after the age of 58 and before 60 years.

50. As regards the other companies, their contention is that the retirement age is reasonable ana that there is no case for increasing 1he retirement age of the employees.

51. In view of the changed circumstances and the fact that the retiring age Is 60 years in many concerns it cannot be said that the present retiring age in these Insurance Companies is reasonable, and fair and that there is no case for increas- ing ^he retirement age.

52. In all Government services the age of retirement of subordinate staff, i.e., peona etc., is 60 years, though pension scheme Is provided for them and better retirement beneflis are available to them.

53. In short, considering the arguments of Shri Gadkuri for the employees and Sbn Pnadke for the employers and having regard to the documentary evidence prodaced on record, I am of the view that the retirement age of all the emplo- yees in question should be fixed at 60 years.

54. The next point for consideration is from what date the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

55. The learned Advocate Shrl Gadkari for the employees contends that the re- tirement age should be fixed at 60 years with retrospective effect.

36. The learned Advocate Shrl Fhadke for the employers on the other hand contends that the retirement age should not be fixed with retrospective effect as it would create complications m the administration.

57. Generally, whenever the retirement age is fixed, it cannot be fixed with retrospective effect. It has to be fixed with effect from a particular date.

58. For the reason; given above, I am of the view that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. At the same time, the employees who are continued in service even after their old dates of retire- ment in various companies referred to above, on account :>f any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account of any extension or any reasor. and who are in service on 30th June, 1969, should continue In service till they reach the age of 60 years. These persons will be entitled to the benefits of retirement age fixed at 80 years-

59. In view of the aho\j findings, I pass the following order:—

ORDEK

1. The retirement age, of the employees working in the Group office. Nor- wich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay Is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969.

2. The retirement age of the employees working in 15 companies mention- ed In the Schedule I to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Order No. 74(15)/64-LBIV dated 7th October, 1964, Ref. No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969.

3. The retirement age of the employees of the Eagle Star Insurance Co., Ltd., Bombay fixed at 60 years under the agreement dated 27th September. 1961, entered into between the company and its workmen is to con- tinue, (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India Order No. 74(15)/64-LRIV. Pt. dated 23rd April, 1965 Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968)

4. The retirement age of the employees in the Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay, is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. (Ministry of Labour, and Employment, Government of India Order No. 74(14) /65-LRTV dated 9th September. 1965, Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968).

•\ The retirement age of the employees in the New Zealand Insurance Com pany, Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Order No. 74(2)/66-LRTV dated 11th March, 19(56, Reference No. CGIT-2/11 01 1968).

8. The employees in all the Companies referred to above, who are in service on 30th June, 19C9, on any account, either on account of any under- taking given to the Tribunal, or on account of extension, or any

reason etc., should continue in service and retire at the age of 60 (after the completion of the age of 60 years.)-

7. Part I Awards In References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 nf 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand re- garding retirement age be made.

8. Award in respect of Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 be made. 9. No order as to costs.

(3d.) N. K. VANI,

Presiding Officer,

Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No. 2,

Bombay.

[No. 74(14)/65-LRiV(LRI).]

S.O. 3191.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Centra] Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 23rd July, 1969.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/4 OF 1968.

Employers in relation to M/s. Eagle Star Insurance Oirnpany Limited, Bombay.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT •

Shri N. K. Vanl, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employees—Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate Shri P. K. Re]o, Solicitor and Shri S. V. Mokashi, Labour Adviser.

For the Workmen—Shri J. G. Gadkari, Advocate Shri Madan Mohan, Vice- President, All India Insurance Employees' Association and Shri K. S. B. Pillai, General Secretary, General Insurance Employees' Union, Western Zone, Bombay.

INDUSTRY: General Insurance

STATE: Maharashtra.

Bombay, Dated the 1st July, 1969.

AWABD

By Order No. 74(15)/64-LRIV Pt. dated 23rd April, 1963 the Government of India, In the Ministry of Labour and Employment referred to the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal, Bombay for adjudication, an industrial dispute existing between the employers In relation to the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their workmen represented by the General Insurance Employees' Union In respect of the matter Specified in the Schedule.

2. Out of 26 demands mentioned in the Schedule, demand No. 11 is a follows :—

"XI. Retirement Age. "The age of retirement of an employee shall be 60 years-"

3. Later on by Order No. 22/8/68-LRIII dated 25th November, 1968, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

4. Shri K. S- B. Filial, General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay on behalf of the employees, has filed written statement dated 12th February, 1965. His contention in respect of demand No. XI is that the age of retirement of the employees of this company be fixed at 60 years.

6- The company has filed written statement on 9th June, 1965- Its contention regarding retirement Is that the retirement age in the Company is 60 years And the Union's demand In this respect is not understood.

6- As the retirement age of the employee of the Company has already been fixed at 60 years, under an agreement dated 27th September, L961, I accept the same and pass the following Award Part I-

7. In the end, f pass the following order :—

OHDER

1 The retirement age of the employees in this company fixed at 00 years under the agreement dated 27th September, 1061 between the parties is to continue.

2. Award Part I in respect of retirement age is made.

3. A copy of the judgement in Reference No. CGIT-2/71 oi 1968 is to form

Part of this Award.

4- No order 3=, to costs.

Sd./- N. K. VANI, Presiding Officer-

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay.

BEFORE THF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/7 OF 1968.

Employers in relation to the Group Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay-

AND

The Workmen.

PRESENT

Shri N. K. Vanl, Presiding Officer.

APPI-.AFANCES :

For the Employers—Shri N. V. Phadke, Advocate, Shri P. K. Rele, Solicitor and Shri S. V. Mokashi, Labour Adviser.

For the Workmen—Shri J. G. Gadkari, Advocate, Shri Madan Mohan, yice- President, All India Insurance Employees' Association and Shri K. S. B, Pillai, General Secretary, General Insurance Employees' Union, Weastern Zone, Bombay.

INDUSTRY : GENERAL INSURANCE.

STATE : MAHAHASHTRA.

Bombay, doted the 1st July, I960

AWARD

By order No. 70(ll)/64-LRIV dated 10th August, 1965, the Government of India, in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers In relation to the Group Offices, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and their workmen in respet of the matter specified in Ihe Schedule mentioned below :—

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the demand of the workmen in the group office Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited for raising the retirement age from 58 to 60 years Is justified?

(2) If so, to what extent and from which date it should take effect?

2. Later on, by order No. 22/9/68-LRIII dated 25th November, 1968, the Central Government transferred this reference to this Tribunal No. 2, for adjudication.

3. On 27th September, 1965, Shri K. S. B- Pillai, General Secretary of the General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay on behalf of the workmen has filed written statement at Ex. W/l. It Is contended that the exsting age of

retirement in the companies under reference at 58 be fixed at 60, that the companies in question have ample capacity to pay and to bear the burden that would be involved due to this demand, that there is consistent trend In the Bombay Region ta ax the retirement age for clerical and subordinate staff at 60, that the Normus Committee has also expressed the opinion that the retirement age for workmen in all industries should be fixed at 60, that longivity of liie in the country is increasing, that the employees are keeping better health on account of medical facilities available to them, that the employees' demand for fixing the retirement age at CO Is justified, reasonable and modest and that the same be granted,

4- The employers in relation to the group office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Company Limited, Bombay i.e. the Insurance Companies concerned in this reference (hereinafter referred to as 'the companies have filed written statement at Ex. E/l on 21st September, 1965. It is contended that the past experience shows that the efficiency of the clerical staff declines from the age of S5, that the value of the services of such employees repidly decline in relation to their emoluments, that the retirement age prescribed by the companies is fair and reasonable, that the Union's demand for raising the a£e of retirement is unreasonable and that the same be rejected. It is also contended that in any event the Tribunal should be pleased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as requiring the employee to attend if so required by the Company, before its doctor In order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service. Similar provisions should be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical ground before attaining the age of 58 years.

5. The companies have filed rejoinder at Ex. E/2 on 17th November, IP fill.

By this rejoinder the companies denied "the allegations made by the Union in its written statement Ex. W/l and reiterated their stand taken in the written state- ment Ex. E / l.

6- The General Insurance Employees' Union, Bombay has pn^uced a statemeai showing the existing retirement age in the companies under reference and certain other insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bombay, In all 24, ax Ex. W/2. Out of 24 companies, the retirement age in 23 companies is 60 years.

7. The companies have produced a statement at Ex. E/3 showing the age ot retirement existing in certain Insurance Companies in Bombay- Another state- ment showing the retirement age existing in the companies concerned in references NJWJ. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-2/4 of 1963, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1968, and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 is produced at Ex. E/4. Another statement giving Informa- tion regarding the date on which the Government of India referred the Industrial Disputes of M/s. South British Insurance Company limited, Bombay and other Companies for adjudication by the Tribunal and the dales of retrospective effect, if' any agreed between the parties to the Award of the Tribunal, is produced at Ex. I./5. The companies have produced statement Ex. E/6 wnieh gives particulars of workmen who retired (at age below 60) from the service of the Companies during the pendency of the above references.

8. Reference No- CGIT-2/3 of 1968 between the same parties d^ in Reference No, 7/68 was made to the Tribunal for adjudicating 17 demands. In those 17 demands, the demAnd regarding raising the atfe of retirement to 60 nad remained to be made- Hence separate reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 in respect cl retire- ment age was made to the Tribunal.

9 In reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 1968 there is dispute about t6 demands Including the demand regarding retirement ase (Demand No. 11) between the employees and 15 companies as mentioned in Schedule I in that reference.

10 In Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 there is dispute about J6 demands including the demand regarding the retirement age (Demand No. 11/ between the employees and M/3- Eagle Star Insurance Ccmpany Limited.

11 In Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands Including the demand refarding the retirement age (Demand No, 11) between ttie employees and M/s. Atlas Assurance Company Limited, Bombay.

12 In Reference No- CGIT-2/11 of 1968 there is dispute about 26 demands including the retirement age (Demand No. 11) between the employees had M/s- New Zealand Insurance Company limited, Bombay.

13. Reference Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968. CGIT-2/4 of 1908. CGIT-2/8 t> 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1988 in respect of demand regarding retirement age only are heard

togeth3r alongwith reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968, which is In respect of retire- ment age only-

14. At the outset, it may be noted that in Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968 between M / s. Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay and the General Insurance Employees' Union, representing the workmen of the said company, the dispute regarding retirement age should not have been raised because as a result of the agreement dated 27th September, 1961, entered into between the company and the workmen, the retirement age In the company has already been fixed at GO years. This is clear from para. :-iO of the written statement filed by M / s. Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay on 28th April, 1966, in reference No, CGIT-2/4 of 1&68 (old Reference No. CGIT-33 of 1965 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay).

lo The dispute regarding raising the age of retirement to 60 is between the employees and the companies involved in Reference Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CG1T-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 cf 1968 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968

lii The Important point for consideration is whether the demand of the work- men in Reference Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1963, CGIT-2/7 of 1968, CGIT-2/8 of 1B68 s.nd CGIT-2/11 of 1968 for raising the retirement age 58 to 60 years is justified.

17. My finding on this point Is in the affirmative for the following reasons :—

18 The learned advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that there is consistent trend in the Bombay Region to fix the retirement age at 60. In support of his contention h<" relies on the ruling reported in 1964, II, LLJ, Page 644 111 the case between Talang G. M. and others Versus Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, and another.

19. Shri Phadkc, learned advocate for the companies contends that there Is no law that in Bombay Region the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

20. tt is true that there is no law which says that ige of clerical and subordinate stall working in Bombay Region, in various concern, should be fixed at 60 years, but there is a trend in Bombay Region to fix the r e i r e m e nt age of the employees at GO years. This trend, has 'been recognised by •> arious Tribunals and also by the Supreme Court of India.

21. In the case between Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (Private) Ltd,, Bombay and its workmen, reported in the 1960 II, I_,I.J, Page 716, where the Tribunal raised the age of retirement from 55 to 58, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has obsen ed that the evidence on record strongly suggests almost a uniform tendency in Bombay to fix the age of retire- ment at 60 and not at 55.

22- It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court In the above mentioned case on page 720 as follows :—

"As this Court pointed out jn the case of Dunlop Company (Supra), the recent trend in the Bombay area clearly appears to be to fix the age of retirement at 60. That being so, we see no- reason why the age of retirement of the workmen in the present appeal should not be similarly fixed."

23- In the case of Talan# (G.M.) and others and Shaw Wallace and Company Limited and another, reported in 1964, II, LLJ, page 644, It Is observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court as follows :—

"As observed in the two decisions in 1960-11, LLJ, 716 and 1959-11, LLJ, 826 the trend in the Bombay Region Is to fix the age of retirement at 60 years."

24. There could not be any doubt from the various rulings of the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court ras recognised the trend in Bombay Region to fix the age of retirement at 60 years. Hence, eventhough, there is no rule or law which lays down that the age of the employees of Bombay Region should be fixed at 80 years, still the trend r>rpvailing in Bombay Region fixing the retirement age at 00 years has to be recognised. Hence the contention raised by Shri Phadke, learned Advocate for the companies cannot be accepted.

25. The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari relies on the report of the Normus Committee, referred to in 1064, II, LLJ. Page 647, in the case between Tailing

(CM.) and another and Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, and another It is as follows ;—

"After taking Into consideration the views of the earlier committees and commissions including those of the Second Pay Commissions the report of which has been released recently, we ieel that the retirement age for workmen In all industries should be rixed at 60. Accordingly, the norm for retirement age is fixed at 60-"

26. The opinion of the Normus Committee referred to above clearly supports the view that the retirement age of clerical and subordinate staff should be rtxed at 60 years.

27. In the case between Talang (G.M.) and others and Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, and another, Their Lordships of Supreme Court have reierred to the Pay Commission's report, referred to in 1964, II, LL,J, Page 645. The relevant portion is as follows :—

"As has already been noticed, there is no dispute that the age of compulsory retirement should not remain at 55. The dispute is whether it should be fixed at 58 or at 60. It is interesting to refer in this connexion to the information that has been collected by the Pay Commission (1957—5i)) as regards the pensionable ages prev ribed under the pension Insurance schemes for employees generally or tor Industrial employees and under social assistance or universal schemes in 48 countries in 1954. According to this the pensionable a^e is 70 in two countries; 67 in another two; 65 in twenty-four, 60 in seventeen, 55 in two and 50 in one. Thus out of 48 countries for which informa- tion was available It was found that in 45 countries the pensionable age was fixed at 60 or more- As the Pay Commission Report pointed out—•

"This is particularly remarkable, considering that the countries differ widely In demographic constitution, levels of economic development, and climatic and social conditions; and it indicates a virtual unanimity of competent opinion that balancing the various factors—physiological, economic and social—that are relevant the normal working life should continue up to the age of 60, and may well go on up to 65 years."

28. The Supreme Court has further observed as follows :—

"It is undoubtedly more useful, however and indeed essential for our present purpose to examine the trends in this matter In our own country and specially in the region in which the present dispute has arisen. In the delicate task of adjusting needs of the employees to the interests of the employers and what is even more important to the general interests of the country at large, industrial adjudication has to pay special attention to the prevailing practice in the Industrial region concerned. If in any particular region employees have been success- ful in their claim for fixing the age of retirement at 60 this very success is bound to raise in others in the region similar expectations- Refusal of similar relief to them is likely to create discontent. It is the endeavour of Industrial adjudication to prevent this- That is why on questions of age of retirement and hours of work and other similar matters industrial tribunals attach much weight to what has been done iji other industrial concerns In the neighbourhood in recent times—whether by agreement or by adjudication."

29 The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari has relied on Ex. W/2 which is a comparative statement showing retirement age in the companies under reference, certain other Insurance companies and commercial concerns in Bombay.

30. Out of 24 companies mentioned' in the statement Ex. W/2 the retirement age is 60 in respect of 23 companies.

31. The companies have produced statement Ex. £'/4 showing the present retirement age In each company. Out of 22 companies mentioned in the Ex. E/4, retirement age In Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay is (30 years The retirement age for males in respect of Home Insurance Company is 60 years. The retirement age in respect of the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited, is 58 but there is a rule under which extension upto 60 years at the company's discretion can be given. Out of 19 remaining companies, the age of retirement Js 55 years In the Legal and General Assurance Society Limited and 58 years in

the lemainlnt; 18 companies. Some companies have got discretion to give exten- sion beyond 58 years.

32. As there are 23 companies as mentioned in Ex, W/2, In which the retirement age oi clerical and subordinate staft is 80 years, the employees working in the companies referred to in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1908, CGIT-2/7 of 1968 CGIT-2/8 of 19G8 and CGIT-2/11 of 19H8 would feel disgruntled and dissatisfied, if their retirement age is not raised to GU years and if they are asked to reiire before the age of 60 years. This will distrub Industrial peare and create unrest, and dissatisfaction amongst the employees. In order that there should be industrial peace and satisfaction among the various employees working In this? region, uniformity of retirement age has to be maintained In order to maintain the same uniformity, it is absolutely necessary that the age of letzrement of the employees in the companies referred to in the above references should be fixed at 80 years- ,

3H. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke contends that the companies in question are all India concerns and that changing the terms of service conditions in regard to retirement age in one place might unsettle the uniformity and might have serious repercussions in other branches-

34. In the case between Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Limited, and its workmen and others, reported in 1959, II. LLJ, Page 826, their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as follows :—

"There is no doubt that in the case oE an all-India concern il would be advisable to have nnlform conditions of service throughout India and if uniform conditions prevail In any such concern, they should not be lightly changed. At the same time it cannot be forgotten that industrial adjudication is based, in this country at least, on what Is known as industry-cum-region basis and cases may arise where It may be necessary in following this principle to make changes even where the conditions of service of all India concern are uniform. Besides, however, desirable uniformity may be in the case of a]l-India concerns, the tribunal cannot abstain from seeking that fair conditions of service prevail in the industry with which It is concerned- If therefore any scheme, which may be uniformly in force throughout India in the case of an all-India concern, appears to be unfair and not in accord with the prevailing conditions in such matters, it would be the duty of the tribunal to make changes in the scheme to make it fair and bring it into line with the prevailing conditions In such matters, particularly in the region in which the tribunal is functioning irrespective of the fact that the demand is made by only a small minority of the workmen employed in one place out of the many where the all-India concern carries on business."

•15- One of the important point for consideration would we that the age of retirement can be confined to industry-cum-reglon basis. It has been held that Awards and agreements on the question of age of retirement clearly show that there Is a consistent trend in Bombay Region to fix the retirement age of Clerical and Subordinate staff at 60 years-

36, As there are number of concerns in Bombay Region where the age of retire- ment is GO the contention of learned Advocate Shrl Phadke that age of retire- ment In the companies, where the retirement age is below 60, should not be fixed at 60 on the ground that these concerns are all India concerns; can not be accepted. If this contention of Shri Phadke Is accepted, it will create unrest, dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It will disturb the industrial peace. In the same Region on the principle of industry-cum-reglon basis, disparity in ages of retirement In diflerant concerns cannot be allowed.

37, The learned Advocate Shri Phadke relies on the Award of Reserve Bank of India given by the Arbitrator Shrl T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Retired Supreme Court Judge- published in the Gazette of India, dated 5th March, 1968, Part IT. Section 3 (ii). pages 183 to 298.

38, It appears from the facts of the Award referred to above that the demand of the employees of the Reserve Bank of India was to raise their retirement age to fiO years- In considering this demand all previous Supreme Court rulings have been considered. The Arbitrator refused to raise the age of retirement having regard lo the special position occupied by the Reserve Bank of India as distinct from commercial concerns and liberal character of superannuation benefits.

39- It has been observed In paras. 18.4 and 18.5 of the Award as follows :—

"18.4. The result of the above authorities may thus be stated: Of the several relevant factors to be taken Into account in fixing the age of retirement, the industry-cum-region principle is one cf the most Im- portant. The weight to be jjiven to it in an all-India concern, how- ever, depends on the other factors and considerations- Another important factor to be taken Into account is the existence of a scheme of superannuation benefits. Where it is liberal, that will be a ground for not raising the age. On an ultimate analysis, a decision on the question must turn on the facts and circumstances of each case.

"18.5- What then are the facts of this case? We start with this that in the Bombay region, the age of retirement for workmen is in general fiO and that has been adopted by the commercial banks- As against this, the contention of the Bank is that it Is not In the same situation as the commercial banks, that its business activities and service conditions are more akin to those in the Centrul Government and that it is the rules in Government service that would be more appro- priate and not those in commercial banks. It has been already pointed out that though the Reserve Bank does carry on banking business, its main and substantial work is sovereign in character- Even its banking activities are not comparable with those of commer- cial banks. Its customers are not members of public, but Central and State Governments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like- Apart from this, it is under a duty to secure monetary stability and has to take decisions on policies of an all-India character. Moreover its business is largely bound up with the work of the Government and this has led to the recruitment of a large number of temporary hands, as for example, in the implementation of Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Annuity Deposit Scheme and the like. The commercial banks have not, Jt is urged to face the problem of recruitment of a large number of temporary staff which the Reserve Bank has to do in carrying out the Government policies and it is argued that the unions are rather inconsistent in demanding at one breath that temporary hands should be made permanent within a vear and at the same time claiming that the age of retirement should be raised to 80".

40. It Is clear that on account of peculiar position occupied by the Rrserve Bank of India and the liberal character of the superannuation benefits, the arbitrator refused to raise the retirement age to 60. In my opinion, the facts of the case of the Reserve Bank of India employees do not compare with the facts of this case- Further each case has to be decided on its own facts and merits.

41- The companies Involved in various References are Insurance Companies I.e. commercial concerns. They are concerned with public, while the Reserve Bank of India is concerned with the Central and State Governments, public bodies, commercial banks and the like. It has no transactions with private individual.

42. Except in the case of Home Insurance Company, in reference No, CGIT-2/2 of 1968, the age of retirement in almost all companies is 58. In the case of Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, in reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1968, the retire- ment age is 80 years. The Home Insurance Company as mentioned In Ex. E/4, has got provision to give extension to its employees at its discretion, br\yonci 60 years. As there is no uniformity among these companies, functioning in the same region, it is absolutely necessary to bring- unformity in the retirement age, by raising the affe of retirement to 60 years.

43. In the References before me the employees are not satisfied with the existing superannuation benefits and other benefits to which they are entitled They have got a grievance regarding different ages of retirement in different companies. Except in the Home Insurance Company there is no pension scheme In any other companies- Even though there is pension scheme, the Home Insurance Company gives extension to their employees beyond 80 years. As no pension scheme has been provided by other companies, there is justification for the employees' claim that their retirement age should be raised and fixed at 80 years

41 The learned Advocate Shri Phadke says that wherever, the retirement a£p is no, It should be maintained at 60 and wherever the retirement age is less, it may not be taken bevond 58. I am unable to accept the contention of Shri Phadke that wherever the retirement age is less it should not be raised beyond 5" years.

, 45. In Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1&68. the employers contend that the retire- ment age prescribed by these companies is fair and reasonable, that there ia no case for increasing the retirement age and that the same be not increased because the efficiency of the clerical staff declines from the age of 55 years and because the value of the service by such employees rapidly declines in relation to their emoluments. This contention raised by the employers cannot be accepted.

46. It is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 845 of 1966 in the case between the workmen ol Kettlewell Bullen and Company Limited and the Kettlewell Bullen and Company Limited, dated 12th February, 1969 that the efficiency of workmen does not get unpaired till about 60 years- The relevant portion in respect of this observation is as follows:—

"It is now-a-days fairly well recognised that life expectation has considerably increased in recent years and the rate of mortality has fallen consider- ably on account of better living condition, improved medical facilities and above all the extension of educational emenities. The result is that physical efficiency of workmen generally speaking is not deteriorated till about 60 years- Consequently there has in the last decade been a general trend to raise the age of retirement- This is so also in the case of employees in Government service and in the service of quasi-government concerns. In raising the age of retire- ment, apart from the fact that the efficiency of workmen does not get impaired till about 60 years, considerations is also paid to the fact that his needs are likely to be larger between the age of 50 and 66 years as it is during that span of life that he has to educate his children, marry bis daughters and thus incur additional financial burden over and above the burden of maintenance of his fcinil • "

47. The companies in reference No. CGIT-2/7 of 1968 contend that if this Tribunal Is Inclined to increase the retirement age to 60 it should be pleased to prescribe adequate safeguards such as r""quirlng the employee to attend il so required by the Company, before its Doctor in order to certify the fitness of the employee to continue in service and that similar provisions should be prescribed to permit the Companies to retire an employee earlier on medical ffround before attaining the age of 58 years- I am unable to accept the stand oi the companies.

48. If the companies are given discretion to retire any employee before the age of 58 or after 58 and before 60 years, discrimination is likely to be caused.

49- If some employees become inefficient and do not do work, the companies can take action against them for their inefficiency after holding departmental enquiry, following the rules and regulations- In my opinion, it is not necessary to make any provision as suggested by the companies to enable them to retire a person before 58 or at any time after the age of 58 and before 60 years.

50. As regards the other companies, their contention is that the retirement age is reasonable and that there is no case for increasing the retirement age of the employees.

51. In view of the changed circumstances and the fact that the retiring age is 60 years in many concerns it cannot be said that the present retiring age in these Insurance Companies is reasonable, and fair and that there is no "66e for increasing the retirement age.

52. In all Government services the age of retirement of subordinate staff, i.e. peons etc. is 60 years, though pension scheme is provided for them and better retirement benefits are available to them,

53. In short, considering the arguments of Shri Gadk&ri for the employees and Shri Phadke for the employers and having regard to the documentary evidence produced on record. I am of the view that the retirement age of all the employees in question should be fixed at 60 years.

54. The next point for consideration is from what date the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years.

55- The learned Advocate Shri Gadkari for the employees contends that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years with retrospective effect.

56. The learned Advocate Shri Phadke for the employers on the other hand contends that the retirement age should not be fixed with retrospective effect as it would create complications in the administration.

57. Generally, whenever the retirement age Is fixed, it cannot be fixed with. retrospective effect It has to be fixed with effect from a particular date. *'

58. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the retirement age should be fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. At the same time. the employees who arc continued in service even after their old dates of retire- ment In various companies referred to above, on account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal or on account oi any extension or any reason and who are in service on 30th June. 1B6& should continue in service till they reach the age of 60 years. These persons will be entitled to the benents at retirement age fixed at 60 years.

59- In view of the above findings, I pass the following order :—

ORDER

1. The retirement age of the employees working in the Group office, Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, Scottish Union and National Insurance Company and Maritime Insurance Ccmpany Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969.

2. The retirement age of the employees working" in 15 companies mertlcmed in the Schedule I to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Order No. 74(15)/64-LRIV dated 7th October, 1904. Reference No. CGIT-2/2 of 19G8 is fixed at GO years with en'ect from 30th June, 1969,

3. The retirement age of the employees of the Eagle Star Insurance Com- pany Limited, Bombay fixed at 60 years under the agreement dated 27th September, 1961 entered into between the company and its workmen is to continue. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India Order No, 74(15)/64-LRIV.Pt. dated 23rd April, 1965, Reference No. CGIT-2/4 of 1UC8).

4. The retirement age of the employees In the Atlas Assurance Company Limited. Bombay, Is fixed at 60 years with effect from HOth June. 1969. (Ministry of Labour, and Employment, Government of India Order No. 74(14)/fl5-LHIV dated Oth September, 1965, Reference No. CGIT-2/8 of 1968),

5. The retirement age of the employees in the New Zealand Insurance Company Limited, Bombay is fixed at 60 years with effect from 30th June, 1969. (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Order No. 74(2)/66-LRIV dated 11th March, 1066, Reference No, CGIT-2/11 of 1968).

6- The employees In all the Companies referred to above, who are in service on 30th June, 1969 on any account, either en account of any undertaking given to the Tribunal, or on account of extension, or any reason etc should continue in service and retire at the age erf 60 (after the completion of the age of 60 years).

7. Part I Awards in References Nos. CGIT-2/2 of 1968, CGIT-u/4 of 1968, CGIT-2/'8 of 1068 and CGIT-2/11 of 1968 in respect of demand regarding retirement age be made.

8. Award in respect of Reference No. CGIT-2/7 of LP08 be made.

9. No order as to costs-

3d/- N. K. VANI. Presiding Officer.

Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay-

[No, 74/15/64-LR.rV(LR.I-).l

S. S. SAHASRANAMAN, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 30th July 1969

S.O. 3192.—Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the minimum rates of wages should be fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948)

Injtaspcct of employment In clay mines covered under the Mines Act, 1952 (35 ol

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intension to add the said employment to Part I of the Schedule to the said Act.

Any suggestions or objections which may be received from any person in respect at the said additions before the 31st October, 1969 will be considered by the Central Government.

[No. 2(30)/07-LWI-I(W.E.).]

HANS RAJ CHHABRA, Under Secy.

(Department of Rehabilitation)

(Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner)

New Delhi, the 29th July 1969

8.O. 3193.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the Central Government hereby appoints for the Union Territory of Delhi, Shri D. C. Chaudhry, Assisted Settlement Officer In the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, aa Assistant Custodian of Evecuee Property for the purpose of discharging the duties assigned to Assistant Custodians by or under the said Act.

[No. 8/69/AGZ/64.]

A. G. VASWANI,

Settlement Commissioner (A) & Ex-Offlcio Under Secy.

MNISTBY OF FINANCE

3 3 9 4

(Department of Eoraunrie Affairs)

T H E

tfew Delhi, the 31st July 1969

S.O.3I9S-—Statement of the Affairs of tbeReserre Bank of India, as on tbe 25th J,uy 1969

BANKING DnWTTHEWT

G A Z E T T E

LIABILITIES

ASSBTS

O F

I

Rs.

Rs.

N D

I

A

:

• • • • •

Note*

3 3 j 5 8 , 5 4 j a"

"_nrLnri nrvi

j *B • 9• j- M•

Rtterre Fond

3,iirfO0

I^ljOQyOO^OOO

Rapee O"s

3."7JOOO

NttJonit Agriculture Credit (Long Twin Opmtloo.)

Small Cote

A U G U S T

Fond

9

,

155^0^0,000

Bills purchased and Discounted '—

Nidonal AgrfcultuT"l Credit (StabJU""ioi)) Fond

- • • *

35>ooiOtvioo

1 9 6 9

(a) Intenul

.

/

(A) Bxienul - .

NKtooal ladUMrial Q e jh (Long-Term Op-nttou) Pond

141,94.84^00

75,00,00*00-;

(e) Govcnment Treasiry Bills

S R A V A N A

Balances Hckt Abroa,i"

l6i,r6o7/X"

1 8

,

. 2923001.000

tnvestincntB** • • • 1 • •

Deposits i—

1 8 9 1

Loans and adrmncen to j—

[

C") Government

•

(0 Central Government

P A R T

l (0 Ceotcal CVwennnent , ,

*

'V) S*?tf Oi""ertintw> % . ..

51,97,81,'vw

i

35,68,04-™

g

S ^

3 (ii) Stale Ckwerbments < i > > >

Loafit and Advance* to H>

(

1 1

(i) Scheduled Commercial Bsnkit '

C*) Bank*

7 9 . I 3 * 2 5 J ( "O

, ]

2 0 1 , 3 1 , 9 2 * 0 00

2 " 0 I , 2 5 J ° 00

(ii) State G>-operatiTe Qankstt . ( t o ") O t h e rs . . ..

L o a n s, Advances and I n v e s t m e n ts from National Agrt-

i7M4>49,oc"

9"53>5t"ooo

(i) scheduled Commercial Banks

(n) Scheduled State Co-operative Banks .

T H E

cultaral Credit ( L o ng T e un O p e r a t k m i) Fui"J—

( a) L o a ns a nd A d v a n c es to :—

(i) S t a te G o v e r n m e n ts - . . ..

59,24,000

22,I9>000

(in) Noo-Schedoled State Co-operative Banks

(tc) Other Banks

3M7.79*°o

( B) State Co-operative B a n ks . . ..

16,51 57)Ooo

295^6^5^000

(c) Others . . . . . ..

G A Z E T T E

Cm) Central L a nd M o r t g a ge Bank*

(6) I n v e s t m e nt in Central L a nd Mortgage Bank

Bills Payable

36*10,91,000

O F

8,96*931000

DebcntuTEB

I

Loans & Advances from National Agricultural Credit

29.79J59,OOO

Other Liability

N D

I

A

:

4,3244^00

(Stabilisation) Fund —

Loans and Advances to State Co-operative Banks

Loans, Advances and Investments from National I odu" trial

Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund^—

6^6,71,000

(a) Loam and Advances to the Development Bank .

(.b) Investment in bonds/debentures issued by tlr

A U G U S T

Development Bank

9

,

O t h er A s s e ts . ..

.

33>93.63P"

1 9 6 9

R u p e es •

. ..

/

I033.69J97.OOO

1033.69 97*000

Rapees

•Indnde* Cash, Fixed Deposits and Short-term Securities.

•* TlwH^ng Investments from the National Agricultural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund and the National Industrial Credit (Long Term

S R A V A N A Operations) Fund.

^Exdudmg Loan* and AdvaiK"from the NatianalAgricDltural Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund, botfavtafimgtemporary overdrafts to State

1 8

,

1 8 9 1 t Include* Ri. 37^0,00^100 advanced to schednled commercial banks agalnstmance bills under Secdoa i7(4Xe) of the Reserve Bank of India Act. tfExchidins Loan* and Advances from the Nttiontl Agrio4toral Credit (Long Term Operations) Fund and the National Agricultnra):7"dit (St"bDi- satkm) Pond.

3 3 9 5 ated the 30th d*T of July, 1969

3 9 6

T H E LtABILJTIFS

ASSETS

Rs.

R9.

Rs.

^*-

Gold Coin and Bullion :--

N^trs held ia tiie Banking Department

182,53,11,000

G A Z E T T E

(a) Herd in inditl

(A) Held outside India ,

Foreign Securities .

200,88,7OPOO

O F

I

TOTJU.

3SS3>i6,47,ooo

Notes ia circulation

383^1^1,000

Rupee Coin

7°>ST^7fiOo

N P 1

A

3576,75*1*00

: , Total Notes Utued

Government of India Rupee Securities

3i22,75>73>0O0

lllteifial Bills Of Prrtiany and

other Commetcial Paper

A U G U S T

Total Assets

Total liabilities

3576.75JOI*OO

i576.7S*oi^*"

9

,

1 9 6 9

/ Dtted the -joth day of Jaly

L. K. JHA,

Governor*

[No. F. 3(3>BQf6?]

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

1 8 9 1

[

P A R T

I I

—

New Delhi, the 1st August 1969

S.O. 3196.—In exercise of the powers conferred by flection 53 of the J3abking Begulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), the Central Government, on the recommenda- tion of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sulb- clause (1) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act shall not apply, till the 31st December, 1969, to the Sangli Bank Ltd., Sangli, in so far as the said Drovisions prohibit Shrl M. K. Gupte, its Chief Executive Officer, from being a director of the Spices and Oilseeds Exchange Limited, Sangli,

[No. 15(0)-BC/68.]

K. YESURATNAM, Under Secy.

(Department of Economic Affairs)

( o n ce of the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India)

N*v> Delhi, t/w 131ft June 1969 <

S.O. 3t97.—The following list of properties and of securities as on the 31st March, 1969 sad abstract of iccounts of interest for the year 1968-69 in respect of Charitable Endowments (Central) held by the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India or his agents under the Chari- table Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890) are published for general information.

PART I—LIST OF PROPERTIES, OTHER THAN SECURITIES

3 9 8

Name of

Particulars of Vesting Order

Administrators of

Property held

Remarks Serial No.

- endowment

Property

T H E

Description Value

No.

Date

Annnal income, if known

G A Z E T T E

8 I

2

9

6 7

4

3

5

O F

I

N D

I INDIA

A

:

i

All that piece or parcel of land Not

Not known- 5tfc Septem- ber, 1952.

Board of Adminis-

tration composed

of:—

21st May,

TheDesh- bandrm College (Delhi) Fund.

1960.

A U G U S T

9

,

along wi.h all buildings and known, structures star ding thereon, situated at Kalkaji, Delhi (Block F_Kalkaji) contain- ing by admeasurement 7-90 acres or thereabouts and bounded:

Ministry of Rehabili- tation Notification No- RHC/ji(s)/p as amended by the Ministry pf Edu- cation Notifications Nos. F-31-64/58- U. 5(I)andP-3i-64/

(a) Secretary to the Government of Indiaj Ministry of Education, who wfll t>e the Chairman,

1 9 6 9

/

On the North East by a road and shopping centre beyond.

On the North West by a road and three-roomed quarter* in Block 'F'beyond.

S R A V A N A

ft) An Officer of the Gov-emment of India nominated by the Ministry of Education,

1 8

,

1 8 9 1

On the South East by a road and 'H' Block of quarters be- yond.

[

(c) An Officer of the Government of India nominated by the Ministry of Rehabilitation.

P A R T

On the South Vest by open

I

land,

M

-

S E C

.

3

U

i )

(i) Five other per- sons preferably non-officials nomi- nated by the Gov- ernment of India.

J

An additional piece or parcel of land along with buildings and structures, if any, there- on situated at Ka'kaji, Delhi containing by admeasure- m e n t^ 57 acres of land or thereabouts and bounded:

(*) Principal of the Deshbandhn Col- lege, Kalkaii.

T H E

On the North East by a road and 4 Block quarters beyond; andl

On the North West (>) by open land; and (rt) land already allotted eirlier.

G A Z E T T E

(/} Two representa- tives elected by the members of the teaching staff of Deshbandhu College, Kalkaji.

O F

I

On the South East (i) road and CH' Block of quarters beyond; (it) by open Jand.

On the South West by a road

N D

I

(g) Two members nominated by the University of Delhi.

and open land.

A

:

Rs-63,50,537-co NotknowiL 12-6-1953

Board of Adminis- tration, Lady Hard- inge Medical Col- 1 ege and Hospital.

27-11-1963

A U G U S

f The Lady Hatdinge Hospital for Women and Child ren,l Delhi, Fund.

2 Ministry of Health Notification No. F, 4-3CD/S3-MI as amended by the Ministry of Health Notification No. F4-2/61 MII(ME).

9

,

Land and buildings of the Lady Hardirge Medical College and Hospital, Delhi together with all fixtures, furni- ture, equipment, etc The area of the Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital Delhi—49 • 82 acres.

Location—Punchkuin Road.

1 9 6 9

/

Boundaries:

S K A V

\

North—Punchkuin Road. South—Lady Hardinge Road. East^—Conn aught Circus. West^—Baird Road. Survey No CE 2370

N A

1 8

LJD.O. No- 94

,

1 8 9 1

Terms—Leased to the institu- tion by the Land and De- velopment Officer, Delhi on a nominal rental of Re. 1/- per annum.

3 3 9 9

3 4 ° I

6

2

8 9

7

O 4

5

3

T H E

Number of buildings, includ-

ing Mosque, Church, etc, 71

in all. Approximate cost of

boikiing* assessed by the

Land and Development

Officer, Delhi, Rs. 63,50,537/-

G A Z E T T E

1. Anti-Rabies Resesrch Cemie

3

31-8-1962

O F

building, KaSauU.

Not

known.

Not

known.

I Miawtryof Health Notification No. F. i4-2<5/6i-Iiistt.

Pasteur Ins-

titute of

India.

2. Lady Linlitbgo Sanatorium

Members of the As-

sociation of the Pas-

teur Institute of

India.

N D

I

building, Rasauli.

A

:

3. Shehon Lodge, Kasauli.

MAHARASHTRA

r G.I.HD. Education

Do. Do.

"7thMay,

1909.

No. 433-

A U G U S T The Indi*n Institdeof Science.

9

,

The Collector of

Bombay, Shri Nar-

yo∠ Hormazdiar

Coyajee and Shri

Naval H. Tata.

1 9 6 9

/

"Victoria Buildings"—All that

piece of freehold, situated in

the Fort on the eastern side

of Parsd Bazar Street, at or

near the Bphinstone Circle

with the messuage, tene-

ments, buildings thereon

known as ''Victoria Build-

ings" containing by admeas-

urement, 482-3/4 sq. yards 01

thereabouts.

S R A V A N A Do.

2 &3

Do.

Do,

Do.

Do.

Do.

1 8

.

"Albion Place and Afcxendra

Terrace"--All that piece of

land, situated at ByculU on

the eastern side of Parel

Road with the messuage,

tenements and buildings tbeie-

1 8 9 1

[

P ^

on, with their ot£-hocses and

stables known as "Albion

Place and Akxendn Terrace1'

U V

11,104 sq. yard* or there-

•boon.

-

Dd.

Do,

Do. Do.

Do.

ba

t

S e

C

3

"Ray Home" and "Sand-

bnnt Hotae**—All thai

piece of pared of leasehold

land rituicd on die Apollo

U

^ ]

T H E

Ttnmhfty r^ntftnimg hy nrL.

measnrement 2^04 8/9

square yards, with the two

boildings thereon, known as

"Ray House" and "Sand-

boist House".

Do.

J)o,

Do.

Da

Do,

Da

6 *7

G A Z E T T E

O F

I

N D

I

A

:

A U G U S T

9

,

"Rosevdt or Ezra Hoose"—

AH that piece or parcel of

leasehold Land, situated on

the Apollo RcHarnftfioiTj

containing by ddmes&Qfc-

ment 533 square yards and

3/9 of another square yard,

wfdi the buildings thereon,

known as the" Rosevelt House

or Ezra House" and secondly

all that piece of leasehold land

also situated on the Apollo

Reclamation, in the Island

of Bombay, containing by

admeasurement 573 square

yards and 3/5 of another

square yard.

1 9 6 9

/

Do.

Do.

Do.

Da

Da

D*.

8 &9

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

J 8 9 1

"Sargent House" and "Jen-

kins House"—All that piece

or parcel of land situated

on the ApoQo Reclamation

in the Island of Bombay,

containing by admeasurement

34K7 2/9 square yards with

the buildings thereon known

as "Sargent House" and

"Jenkins House."

3 4 0 1

3 4 0 2

6

8 I

2

7

3

9

4

5

T H E

27th May,

10 G.Ltf.D. Eduction

Net known

Not known No. 433

1909

"New Shamji Buildings, BOW known as Station Terraces, Sleater Road"-^AH that

The Indian Institute of Science.

piece of land of Foras tenure

The Collector of Bombay, Shri Nar- yosang Hormazdiar Coyajee and Shri Naval H Tata.

G A Z E T T E

O F

I

N D

I

A

:

admeasuring 2,290 square yards or thereabouts with the several messuages, tenements or dwelling houses, known as "New Shaniji Build- ings Extension" now known as the "Station Terraces" situated on the South side of the Sleater Road, Bombay.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

It

A U G U S T

9

,

"Candy House"—All that piece of leasehold land, situated on the Apollo Re- clamation in the Island of Bombay, containing by ad- measurement 529 6/9 square yards known as "Candy

1 9 6 9

/

House".

Do.

Do,

Do.

Do,

Do,

D c^

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

107 8/9 sq. yar- ds, acquired by the Lard Acqnisitioo Office for tbe City of Bom- bay.

1 8 9 1

[

P A K T

"Land near Albion Place and Alexandra Terrrce"- All that piece of land cintainirjg by admeasurement 8,570 square yards or thereabouts registered by the Collector of Bombay with other land situated at Byculla on the eastern side of Parel Road in the City of Bombay, to- gether with messuage*] tene- ments and dwelling houses standing thereon known a* "Land near Albion Place and Ale^iijdra T e n s e ,"

H —

Do.

S B C

.

3

l

i

l

. j

T H E Do, Do, Do, Do, "Land at Parel Tank Road" Firstfy-^Afl that piece of land admeasuring 67j°57 square yartis or thereabouts whereof 7,0 w square yards b Goverr ment Toka land and 2,189 sa. yards is recently assessed Government Land ai>d remaii ing is Inam land situated at Parel on the public road leading to Paid Govern- ment tank, known as "Land at Parel Tank Road" (Wage- shri Hill).

G A Z E T T E

O F

I

N D

I

A

:

Do. Out of 7 4 , 6* square yards, 15,575-So square yds. acquired by Government under Lacd Acquisition Act for the construction of the work of the Tata Hy- dro Electnc Power and Supply Co. Ltd., in con-' nection with its transmission lines . and 37,471—52 square yards subsequently acquired in 1922 by the Land Acqui- sition Officer.

Secondly—All that piece of vacant Inam land admeasur- ing 6,005 square yards or thereabouts situated at PareL Thirdly—AD that piece of va- cant land of the Government Toka tenure containing by admeasurement 1,058 square yards or thereabouts situated at and on the south side of Golangi Hill Road at Parel in the City cf Eombay.

A U G U S T

9

,

1 9 6 9

/

Fourthly—All that piece of vacant Government Toka land containing by measure- [ ment 566 square yards or thereabouts situated at and on the south side of Golangi HUJ| Road at PaTel in the^CStj r of Bombay.

A portion of the land at Parel Tank Road admea- suring 2043.88 sq. yards of CS No. 1/202 pa

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

1 8 9 1

and 623-3380. yards of CS No. 203 part has been ac- quired by the Bombay Mu nicipal Cor

3 4 0 3

3 4 0 4 I

8

6

9 2

5

7

4

3

T H E

G A Z E T T E

O F

I

poration for

the purpose

of construc-

tion of a

Water Reser-

voir under

Section 12(2)

of the Land

Acquisition

Act I of 1894,

N D

I

A

:

Rs.

G.IJiX). Education

27th May,

"5

1909

18,44,108 -28

Rs.

1,99,675-oS

No. 433

The l"ii"n

Institute erf

Scifnce.

T -e Collector of Bom-

b-.y, Shri Naryo-

sang Hormazdiar

Coyajee and Shri

Naval H. Tata.

A U G U S T

9

,

All that piece of land situated

00 the West side of the Colaba

Road at Colaba within the city

and Registration Sub-district

of Bombay containing by

admeasurement 2,020 sq. yards

or there aborts and bounded

1 9 6 9

/

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

1 8 9 1

{

P A R T

&

as follows: that is to say on 01

towards the North by the

Property of the Trustees of

Sir Cnrrimbhoy Ebrahim

Baronetcy Trust, on or towards

the Southby the Road of Police

Chowkey, on or towards the

East by Colaba Road and

on or towards the West by

Wodehouse Road and which

said piece of land b registered

in the Books of the Collector

of Bombay under Rent Roll

No. 8509 *nd bears Cadestal

Survey No, 48 of CoUba Divi-

sion together with the build-

ings and erections standing

thereon assessed by the Muni-

cipality of Bombay under-

Award Kos. 213, 214 and

^

1

S E C

.

( i i )

J

Street Nos. 158 and 125 of Colaba Road and Wodebouse Rari and Street No. 154 of Lower Colaba Road respect- ively.

Net known 7th March,

Not known

G.R-E£>- No. 452

1

T H E 1906

The Secretary, Sir 1 Jamsetji Jejeebhoy Parsee Benevolent Institution, Bombay.

A piece of land wit dwelling house and buildings situate at Hornby Road, Fort, Bom- bay, admeasuring 1688 square yards.

SirTamsetji Jejeebhoy Parsee Be- nevolent Institution.

Do.

Do.

Sirjamsetji

,oih July,

G.REJ). No.i77"

G A Z E T T E

17

1912.

The Secretary, Sir Jamsetji Jejeebhoy Parsee Benevolent Institution, Bombay.

O F

I Jejeebhoy Parsee Benevolent Institution.

N D

All that piece or parcel of free- hold land with messuage, tenement or stables standing thereon situate at GolaLane, Fort, Bombay, admeasuring 173 and 62 stjuare yards or thereabouts.

I

A

:

MADRAS

Not i known 25th June,

Rs, 1,26,475 •"

Madras Goverwoeni

I

1904

The Law- rence Mem- orial School (Lovedale)

A U G U S T

Fund.

14th May,

9

,

1949

[a) Land in Madras bearing Survey No. 232 and measur- ing 15 cawnies 18 grounds and 167S sq.ft. withthe build- ing thereon known as "Madras Military Female Orphan Asylum".

14th August,

1 9 6 9

/ 1952

(6) Lands in Ketti and Ootaca- mimd in the Nilgiris District having the Survey numbers and extents as noted below :

iS/i7th Feb-

ruary, 1956

(a) Three represen- tatives of the Govt. of India of -whom one shall be from the Ministry of Educa- tion and Scientific Research and shall be the Chairman, one shall be from the Ministry of Finance and shall be the Treasurer of the School arid one shall be frori the Ministry

S R A V A N A

23rd August,

of Defence.

1 8

Village S.No. E^a

, 1957 28th Nov-

ember, 1957

Ketti . 1158 12-57

The property is in the occu- pation of the Civil Orphan Asylum, in consideration of the main- taining and educating 30 additional girls in addition to the girls of the Asyhnn such as were for- merly admit- ted to the Madras Mili- tary Female Orphan Asy- lum. cation. Government of India, Ministry of Defence Noofi- catfcK) No- 77*A as amended in Government of India Notification No. F. 19-84/52- GI by the Minis- try of Defence and Notifications Nos. F.i9-39/54{H3Edn. F.19-32/S7D5 and F.I9-4O/57DS by the Ministry " Eduction and Sci- entific Research.

1 8 9 1

j 1224/4 49-26 a_ 1354/2 606 -55

(i>) From other mem- bers to be nominate< by the Govt of Indi

3 4 0 5

5

4

3 4 0 6 I ² 3

8

6 7

9

T H E

1355/3 25-34

1355/5 4" 20

1356/2 0-74

1356/4 1-06

1225 0-67

G A Z E T T E

O F

Ootacamund 5020 1-66-4/8

5018 0-05-5/8

I

N D

I

A

Ketti . . 1159/1 0-14

Ketti . , 1161/1-B 1-65

Ootacamund 4956 6-3-4/8

:

UTTAR PRADESH

A U G U S T

9

,

(a) Three houses situated in Mohalla WeUeslevgunj, Distt. Mirzapnr bounded

A committee of mana- gement consisting of the Collector,

as follows :

2nd April, 1918 and 29th NOT., 1923 res- pectively.

i Government of UJ>. Education Deptt. Notifications No*., 602/XV-301 and 808G/XV/S19/1923.

1 9 6 9

/ Giraundi Kayastha Paths hala Endowmed Trust, Mir- zapur.

Rs. 600-00

Not

r Minapur as ex- OjjiUo Chairman and executors of the estate of late Manshi Binde- shwari Prasad, Ple- ader.

(1) South—House of Sri Piyare Lai, Nortli—Hoose of Mug- ammat Jhunna, West— Government Road3 East House of Sri Snmer Sonar.

S R A V A N A

Rs. 600-00

Do.

1 8

,

^2) Soutri—House of Munshi ! Bindeshwari Prasad, Vakil, Norttt—Mosque, W "— House of Shri Rameshwar Teli, East—Road.

1 8 9 1

[

Rs. 600-00

Do.

P A R T

U

(3) Sootri—House of Shri Budtai, North—House of Munshi Bindeshwari Prasad, Vakil, West—House of MuBammat Umrao, East—Road.

- r -

£

•

£

ftl. 600'00

bo.

.

3

(t>) A grove aitneted in MsUU

Cirmndi, Tehsil Chnnar,

Datrlct Mirzapur.

(

U

Rs. 50'00

) ]

Do.

(p) Pathehala In Msuza Giiaun-

di, Tahsil Chunar, District

MirtapUr situated in the

ftroVe fflendoned in (b)

ffbote.

T H E

fcfcJjAfl

Pending apportionment of Properties relating to Centtal Charitable EndoVrtnehts between India and pal istan tte 1st cf properties could

not be prepared.

G A Z E T T E

O F

I

N D

I

A

A U G U S T

9

,

1 9 6 9

/

S R A V A N A

1 8

,

1 8 9 1 3 4 0 7

PART II—LISTiAND AB$TRXClV

Name of endow-

Persona In whose

Particulars of Securitet

C nh ment

behalf held

Total of

Securities

Case

No.

Interest or

dividend

realised

i

2

4

3

6

3

R*.

R i.

Rt- INDIA

i

1,49,100-00

3

Merchant Sea-

men"! Amenltlei

Fund,

Merchant Seamen's 3% Conversion Loan

Amenities Fund 1946.

Committee. 41% Loan 1086

4,50,000'00

Treasury Savings De-

Poilt Certificate!!

50,000 00

4% Bombay Municipal

1,38,500-00

Loan 1971.

8,87,60000

36.263 -en*

2 Khandpara State

4% Loan 1972

30,600-00

30,600'00

1,224-bo

Trujt Fund

Board of Trustee],

Khandpar* State

Trust Fund.

3

3% 1st Development

Armed Forces

Benevolent Fund

21,65,200-00

j, 38,000'00

Anne d Forces

Benevolent Fund

pencrtl Committee.

Lowi 1970-73

41% Loan 1971

Treasury Savings De-

poilt Certificate

81,900-00

8,00,400-00 1

9% Conversion Loan 1946

)5.85.3OO'OO

1,16,434 -or

Lady Hardingo

3% Conversion Loan

A

19*6

4i% Loan 19B6

S.O5.8O0'OC

7,300 00

Hospital for w o-

men and Children.

Delhi, Fund.

Board of Adminis-

tration, Ludy

Hardinge Medical

College & Hotpltal.

3% 1st Development

LoBn 1970-75

2J.300-OO

1,16,300-00

Trea'ury Saviog"/De-

fence Deposit Cettl-

fleates

National /Plan /Defence

Savings Certificate! .

4i% Loan 1973

I O , 6 I , O O O ' 00 88,100'00 21,04,000' 00 3I.434-I*"

S SS^JOO-OO

3% Conversion Loan 194!

i,39" oo>

33i3OO'OO

5 Army Officers' Benevolent Fund.

Annv Offlctrs1 Be-

nevolent Fund

General Committee.

6 St. Dunitan'i

3% Conversion Loan

1946

91,900-00

(India) Fund.

3% 1st Development

Board of Trustee*,

St. Dunatan'i (India?

Fund.

6,08,300-00

13,000-00

I,OO,OOO'O0

Loan 1970-73

4(% Loan 1989

Traalury Savings D e-

posit Certificates ,

National/Flan Savings

Certificate*

"6,O43'5iJ

8.76,ioo-oo

60,000-00

S % Convtrtlon Loan

Army Central Wel-

7

fare Fund.

19,14.300'tO

N*tlonal/Flan Saving*

G*neril Committee,

Army Central V t l-

fan Fund.

•I,63,000-00

Cortlflcmtei

5|^B,8oo*oo

34,6a,5Coioo

Fixed Dtpotlt with tfa"

Madras Induitrill In-

vettment Corp. Ltd. .

ACCOUNT OF SECURITIES

Receipts

ReuiarksJ

Balance' in cflflh

Payments

Other Total

CMII Cash

receipts receipts

9 7 8

10

11

Rs. Rs,

Rs. Rv

36,263 -oo

Intercut remitted Fee paid to Govt.

1,224 OO Interest remitted Fee paid to Govt. 35,90036 361-64

36,263-00

1,211-76 12-24

I,224-0O

fo) Represents Opening balanci.

(a) 35 00 1,16,489-00 Interest remitted Fee paid to Gnvt.

(") 574-01 31,018 13 Interest remlttod (6) Other payments Bee paid to Govt. 1,15,289-46 35-00

r,1(54-54

t,l6,454-00

3 r . ^9 57 J74 01 314-55

32,028-13

(4) Rs. 74 01 out of this repre-

sent the balance remained after

purchase of securities' of the

4l% Loan 1973 for R".

88,100, "ince remitted to the

Fund authorities and the

balance of Rs. 500 represent!

tUo amount recelTcd ftpm the-

Fund authorities which has

slnce been invested in the

Dtfcnce Deposit Certificate

forFs. 500.

1.599 00 InleiiBt romlt'cd Fco paid to Govt.

16,045 50 Interest remitted Fee paid iu Govt. 1,583 00 I6-OO

1,599-00

25,7^-04

26,045-50

Co) Rs. 169'94 out of thia re-

prelents opanlni b"lance and the

ba""nce of Ra. 4,28,724-70

repr""nti gale proceeds of

3,1% Loan 1074 for Rs-

35,600/" 3% 1st Development

Loan 1970-73 for Rs. 2.56,000/

and 4% Loan 1979 fgr Rs.

1,60,000/-.

i In'ereat romlttod (0) 4,28,8gi4'64 7,Sf.Ag4-ic

Id) Other payments

Fee paid to Govt.

I3.27.547-J15'

4,34.778-S4

3,368-01

7,65,694-10

(d) Rji. 4.34.600/" out of this re-

preienti FiJtod DepOiit In-

vestment with tho Madras In-

dustrial Invcitment CorDonr-

tlon Ltd., and the balance of

R". 178-84 Cinoludlnp tha

opening balance of Rj, 169.94

represents uninvested balinca

dnce remitted to tho Fund

Authorities.

Rs.

Rs.

Ri

>

3,72.900-oc

4% Loan 1969 •

Air Force Officers*

8

Contributory

Education Fund.

General Committee,

Air Force Officers'

Contibutory Edu-

cation Fund.

1,95,000'00

Fixed Deposit with the

Madras Industrial In-

vestment Corp. Ltd.

National Defence Certi-

33,000-0.0

ficates

Defence Depoiit Certi-

ficates

16.378-93

6,62,400-00

4-3/4% Madras Loon 1976

1,00,000-00 t 40,ICC 'CO

j% Conversion Loan

9

93 co

3,10000

Thomas Reed Bell

Memorial Fund.

3,10000

194*

.

The President, Fo-

rest Research Insti-

tute and Colleges,

Dehra Dun.

Central Pout War

10

i,8o,ocooo

4% Loan 1979

National Plan Savings

Certificate

25,00000

Resettlement

Fund.

Treasury Savings Deposit

The Managing Com-

mittee .Central Fort

War Resettlement

Fund.

Ceitlflcat*

£,200 - co

25,000 00 2,30,000-00

3 % Conversion Loan

II Pattern Initltute of

1946

India.

66,900 00 1,10,90000

4% Loan 198a

National Plan Savings

Member! of the As-

sociation of .the

Pasteur Institute

of India.

Certificate.

15,000'00 1,92,800 00 6,443 co

4-1% National Defence

12 National Founda-

29,30,000'do

Bonds 1972

29,50,00000

1,^5,375 'co

tion for Teachers"

Welfare.

General Committee,

National Founda-

tion for Teachers'

Welfare.

Committee of

13

Fixed Deposit with the

Madras Industrial In-

veatmtnt Corp. Ltd.

Management of the

Fund.

1,00,000-00 1,00,000-00 6.405 !^ S Hilda Ranga- nathan Endow- ment for Library Science,

The Superintendent,

Premium Prize Bond 1064

100-00 ICO'00 14

TrainuiR Centre for r

the Adult Blind,

Dehra Dun.

Banuhai ByramjJ,

K a nn Trainee*

Welfare Fund of

tb" Training Cen-

tre for the Adult

Blind, Dehra Dun,

3% ist Development

Armed Forces Re-

15

construction Fund

General Committee,

Armed Forces Re-

construction Fund

Loan 1970-75

4-I/a% Loan 1971

75.73.9°°°o

53.33,ico-oo

I,I9,O7,CC0.CO4,t7,;< f t

16

Committee of Ad-

3% l it Development

Indian Gorkha Ex-

Loan 1970-75

3,82,000 00 3,82,000-00 11,460-00 Servicemen'a Wellarc Fund. •

ministration, Indian

GorMha Ei-Seivfcs-

mtn's Welfare Fund.

3% l it Development

Flat Day Fund .

17

Loan 1970-75

Managing Commit'

te", Flag Day Fund

3,29,000 00 4,20,000f 00

3 % Conversion Loan 1946.

4-1/2% Madhya Pndtsh

State Development

Loan 1974

1,34,000 00

4-1/2% Andhra Pradesh

State Development

Loan 1974 .

1,65,000-00

1,38,00000

4-1/2% Bibir State De-

velopment Loan 1974.

4-1/2% Uttar Pradesh

State Development

Loan 1974

50,000*00

4-1/4% Madras Loan

1972

1^5,000'00

4-I/a% Madras Loan

1974

ipo8,ooo'OO

4-1/2% Maharashtra State

Development Loan

1974

|

(I.07.0O0 • OQ

National Plan Saving*

Certificate)

1,00,000' 00

Premium Prize Bond

1964

5 00

Treasury Savings Deposit

Certificate . •

1,00,000 '00

I7,"6,oo5-oo

64,272-50.

Ks.

R".

R i.

26,378-93

••

Interest remitted

Fee puid to Oovt.

26.115' IJ

2"3-78

26.378-93

93 00 IntcreBt remitted Fee paid to Govt.

92-06

0-94

93 00

8,200'OO

-•

••

|8,n8-oo 82-00

Interest remitted

Fee p>ld to Govt.

8,200-00

6,443 00

••

••

Interest remitted

Fee paid to Govt.

6.378-56

64-44

6,443 00

i.J5.375-oo

•-

••

IntctMt remitted

Feo paid to Oovt.

. 1,14.121-24

I.J53-76

1.^5.373-00

6.405-83

—

Interest remitted

Feo Plid to Govt.

: 6%'U

6,403"83

No Interest becune due on the ••

Prtmram Prize Bond.

(e) RepietenU Openlni bdtiBce.'

98-2J

(e) 93-*5 •

".67.3O4-75

Interatt remitted

F"" paid to Oovt.

- 4.6a,534- 4"

4,672 08

4,(57.206-30

11,460 00

Intereit ntmitttd

••

Fee paid to OoTt.

11,345 40

H4'6o

11,460-00

64.171-50

Intereit remitted

Fee prid to Oovt.

63,629-76

643-74

64,172 -s 3413 "HfE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 9, 1969/SK AVANA 18, 1891 [PART IT— 4 5 I 2 3 6

R i.

R i.

Rs.

MAHARASHTRA

% Loan 1970-75

2,04,TOO 00 2,04,TOO-00 6,123'00 i Indian Inrtltute of The Council of the 1 Science (Banga- Indian Institute of lore Properties), Science, Bangalore

IO,22,80O-O0

1,78,800'00

% Conversion Loon 1946

% Lo"n 1970-75

% Bombay Municipal

i Indian Institute of Scienco (Bombay Properties).

Do. 3' 3' 4'

Debenturci

2,47,500 '00

% Bombay Port Trust

4

Debentures.

,6j,ioo-oo 49,486,00

12,000-00 15,

3 Falurjee Cowasjee Captain-Superinton- 3% Converation Loan

(5O,OOOTOO 60,000-00 1,800-00 nf Karachi Scho- dent. Twlningjhjp, 1946 larship Fund. Dufferln Mazgaon

Pier, Bombay-10.

4 Chntfleld Memo- 1 rial Prize Fund.

. Principal Train- ing CollejtoforMeri, Poona.

% Conversion Loan

2

200-00

6-oo

1946

200 00

. Principal Train- 3 imr College for Men, Dharivar.

1. Principal Train- 3 inj Collecc for Men, Ahmedabad.

56,000-00 i,6So'OO

3™,', Conversion Loan 1946 56,000-00

5 Gflnesh Balwant j

Lipiayf Scholar- ship Fund.

Director of liduca- tion, Maharashtra State, Poona.

1,100-00

5 1,too 00

33 CO 6 Sir WiJhamMooij

j "i Convfuiun L.nsn T9-K

Memorial Fund,

Suttfcon-Gon. wlrh th" Oovt. of Mahu- raihtra, Bombay.

^ % Coiivemion Loan

1,45,300'oo

1946

Director of Hducu- tlon, Maluirishtra State, Poonu.

4% Muhnrashtra Loan

5,100-00

4.563-00

1,30,400-00

1969

7 Kuzi Shahbuddin Endowment for the encourseement of Education flm- on£ Moharnodanu in the Bombay Presidency.

3% Conversion Loan

Do.

8 Fund for Prizes In

ip4fi

3,400-00

400•00 3,000-00

132-00

4% B.P.T. Loan.

English in connec- tion with the S,S. C. Examination.

Board of 1'rustces of

30,044-00

45,000-00 46,100-00 30,000-00 6,30,000-00 7 , 5 I . I O O-OO

4% Madras Loan 1971 4% A. P. Loan 1971 ' 4% U. P. Loan 1971 : 4% W. E, Loan ig7i

9 Sir Sassoon David Truit Fund for Agriculture and Educational pur- poiei.

the Fund C/o Secy, to Govt. of Maha- rashtra, Agriculture and Co-opcratlon DePtt., Bombay.

10 Aftar-care Fund In Prejldent Maharash- 5-1/2 % Moharaihtra

980-00

21,000-00 connection with the tra St"te Probation & Loan 197S • 14,000-00 Bombay State Pro- After-core Amocia- 3% Conversion Loan 1946 7,000-00 batlon "nd After- tlon, B.J.T. Block cure Association. No. 33, King*! Circle, Metungu[B ombay-i 9.

L

3% Conversion Loan

il Imperial Indian Director of Eduoa-

756-00

25,200-00

25,200-00

1946

Rellef (Scholarship) tion, Maharashtra Fund. Stale, Poona.

3% Conversion Loan

12 Santribal Krishna- Do.

384-00

I2,SOO-00

12,800-00

1946

rto, Uplap Scho- larship Fund.

R9.

Rs.

R".

Rs.

6,123-00

6,061-71s 61-24

Interest remitted Fee paid to Govt.

6,123"oo

49,486-00

48,991-14 494-86

Interest remitted l'ee paid to Govt.

49,486 00

1,800-00

1,782-00 i8-oo

Interest remitted Fee paid to Govt.

1,800-oo

f Fee paid to Govt. • Li) 0-03

W) 9

1-73

15-90 Interest remitted J Fee Paid to Govt.

0-02

(j) Dharwnr ^ (k) Ahmedabad. (0 Interest has heen retained 4, the Injtitut on "t fl) has been closed with effect from the 1st April 1964.

0) 1-75

id) Represents opening balance.

1-73 0'02

Interest remitted. Fee Paid to Govt.

(*> i-75

TOTAL

3-53

1,680•00

••

1,663-20 16- 80

Interest remitted . l'ee paid to Govt. .

1,680-00

33 00

••

••

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

3166 O-34

33-00

4.563-oc

4.517 "36 45-64

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

4,563-00

132-oc ) Interest remitted..

-.

Fee paid to Govt. .

130 68 1-32

132-00

29,743 56

30,044-0

-•

D Interest remitted . l'ee paid to Govt. .

30044

30,044-00

••

970-20 9-H0

ySo-oo Interest remitted - Fee paid to Govt. .

960 00

756 -00 Interest remitted.

••

Feo paid to Crovi. .

748-44 7-56

756-.no

384 00 Interest remitted. - F" paid to Govt. .

380-16 3-34

384-00

R i.

Ri.

Rs.

13

3% Convonion Loan

4,16,00000

1946-

5-3/4% MaharaBhtra

Bombay Province Director of Asiicul- Agrlcultutal Show ture, Maharashtra Fund State, Poona.

Loan 1979

2,00000 4,18,00000 12,595-00

3% Convenlon Loan

14

1946.

Director of Educa- tion, Mahartuhtra State, Poona.

4% B.P.T. Loan.

28,100-00

5,600 00 22,300-00

1,068 00 Saiyid Salyld Mi- yan Ahmed Mi- yan Kadri Scho- larshlp Fund.

Do.

3% Conversion Loan

15

1946

11,100-00 11,100-00

333 00 Dr. Ramchandra Shivaji Portdl Scholarship Fund,

Sir Cuiraw Wadia

3% Loan 1970-75

IS

12,86,100-00 12,86,10000 38,583-00

Trust Fund.

Chairman of the Governing; Body of the Fund C/o Secy, to Govt, of Miha- raihtra. Agricul- ture & Co-opera- tion Doptt., Bom- bay.

6,6OD-OO

17

3% Loan 1970-7J

3% Conversion Loan

4-i/4% Bombay S. D.

Post War Services Reconstruction Fund. (Raiasthan Share)

Loan 1969

3,6oo-oo 11,400-00

386-74

Wir Memorial

18

3% Cunvenlon Loan

21,32,900 00 31,32,900-00 63.9S7-0O

J946

Fund for Indian Merchant Seamen 1947-

Committee of Ma- nagement of the Indian Sailors, Home SoclQty,M""- Jld Bunder Siding Roiid, Bombay-9.

19

3% C.onvorjlon Loan 1946

Homi Mehm Vic-

4-1/4% Loan 1973

S'oO'Oo 100-00

4-J/4% Bombay Loan

1969

500 - 00 1400-00 tory Thanksgiving Fund (RaUsthan Share)

49-24

T. V. Mandke Prize Director ofEduca-

30

FunJ. lion, Maharastru

3% Conversion Loan

1946

1,600-co 1,600-00

48-00

State, Poona.

Do.

M™ Manlkbal

21

3% Loan 1896-97

I.OOCf-00 I,"oo-oo

300 00:

Shinde Prize Fund.

9^00-00

3% Loan 1970-75

3% Conversion Loan

16,635-011

5,54,300-00

1946

5,45.3°o.- oo-

Mamtha War Me- Mony, Secretary, nntlal Fund. Marathn War Me- r morial Fund, The Matutha Lieht Infantry Re- nimcntal Centre, Beiyaum.

Sir M. V. Toshi ]

13

Principal, Agriculture

College, Poona.

Trust Fund.

11,800.00 500-00 13,300-00

404-00

3 % Converson Loan 1946 4% Bombay Loan 1970.

Chairman, Bombay

II,UOO-O"I 11,06000

330-00

1% Conversion Loan 1946

24 Mist Clarke Me- morial Nurjlnn Fund.

Branch of the No- tional Annotation for supplying be- mak Medical .\id and Instruction tt" the women of In- dia, C/o Shn R. N. Bhavnugrl, S. B. BiUImoria 4 C]o.. Chartered Account- "nt", 113, Mahat- ma Oandhl Road Bombay-i.

R i.

R".

R l.

R".

".59SOO

••

••

Interest remitted .

Fee p"ld to Govt. .

, 11,469 04

t " 3 96

I2.J9J 00

1,06800

••

••

1,057-33

io"S

" Interest remitted -

F"e ptld to Govt. .

1,068-00

-

333-00

• •

Interest remitted .

Fee paid to Oovt. .

319-66

3-34

333 00

38,58300

38,197-16

••

••

Interest remitted •

Fee paid to Govt. .

3 " 5 "4

38,j83'OO

Of) 9407

o-iS

(h) 4*0-63

480-81

Fee ptld to Oovt. .

0 18

(l) R"pre"enti opening balance.

Th" dlffennca of Rf- 0 - i jF in

the cloting balance ai on 31.3-68

and opaning balance as on

1-4-1*68 It on account of corn-

minion charted by the Reserve

Bulk which could not be reflected

in the account! of 1967-68.

63,987-00

63,347'11

639 88

Interest remitted .

Foe p"id to Oovt.

63,987-00

"•

CW The Interest on account of

•ecuritiei pertaining to Ra;"J-

tb"n has been retained pending

transfer of the share of Riiju-

than.

14-6z

012

Fee p"id to Govt.

(1)73-740

73 "6

on

(I)Repre"em" opening Bjlanco

)The interest on account of securi1

titt pgttaining to Rajasthan*

h*> been tetilned ponding

transfer of tho shate of Ka)*

ustbtia

4800 1

[nloreit remitted

Fee paid t" Govt. .

47-Jl

048

48 00

3000

••

••

1970 0 30

Intersil remitted. -

Fee p"Id to Govt. .

3000

16,633 00

. 16,468-64

16636

Interest remitted

Fe" paid to Govt.

16,635'oo

40400 Intere"t remitted

. 39996

404

Fee paid to Govt..

404-00

••

••

316-70

3-30

330 00 Intcrejt remitted .

Feo p^d to Oovt. .

330,00

R".

Rs.

Rs.

Director of Educa-

3 % ^Conversion Loan 1946 J.ooo • 00

2,000-00

Barjorji Maneckji

60 -oo

35

Sutarla Prize Fund.

tion, Maharashtra ]

State, Poono.

36 Campbell Memorial

4-i/4% Maharashtra Loan 3

Committee of Manage

1972. J 4,ooO'00

4,900-00

Fund.

108-26

pemertt of the Bom-

bay Branch of the

Asiatic Society,

Town Hall, Bom-

bay-i.

37 Sir Jamietjee Je)eo- bhoy Parsee Bene- volent Institution];

Secretary, Sir J.J.P.

B. Institution, 309,

Dr. DidabhoyNa-1

oroii Roid, Fort,

Bombay-i.

^% Loan 1S96-97 . . "6,000 • 00

3% Loan 1970-75 . . 39,500-oo

3 %Conv. Loan 1946 . 12,99,300-00

4 % L o a n i 9 8l . . 50000

4 %Bomb"y Loan 1970 . J,6oo-oo

4-1/4 % Maharashtra

Loan 1973. . . 19,50000

4-3/4 % Lo"n 1989 . 500- 00

4-1 ft % Maharahstra

Loan 1974- . . 3,00000

4-3/4 % Madras Loan

1976 . . . 3,000- 00

4 % Bombay Mu. Debts 4,50000

4-1/2 %Loan 1971. . 11,80,800-00

4-1/4 % Maharashtra

Loon 1976. . • ' 7,000 00

4 % Bombiy Port Trurt

Bonds. . . . a, 500-00

5-1/3 %Maharashtra'

Loan 1978 . • 4,400-00

5-1/2 % Maharashtra Loan

1077. . . . 500-00

5-3/4 % Madras Loan .

1079. . . . 3,300 00

5-3/4 % Madras Loan

6,30,700'00

9i,:" 57

)9Bo.an . . 3,500-00 2

Bombay Branch of

Treasurer of the

28

7,743 CO

3 % Conversion Loan 1946 1,18,100-oo

4 % Mahr. Loan 1969 . 30,000-00

2,48,100-00 the National Asso- ciation for supply- ing Female Mcd- dioal Aid and Inftruetlon to the Women of India.

Bombay Branch of

the Nation*! Aasoda-

uon C/o Shri R.

N. Bhavn"gri, S. B.

Blilimoria and Co.

H3, M. G. Road,

Bombay-i,

2,160 00 Ruatomiee Jamset-

3 % Conversion Loan 1946 72,000-00

72,000•00 39

Tellllbhoy Gujarti

School Fund.

Secretary, Sir. J. J.

Parsee Benevolent

Institution, 209, Di

D. N. Road, Fort, t

Bombay. \ J

MADRAS

I

(0) Three represen-

4%'Madras Loan 1969 . 3,46,000 • 00

3% Conversion Loan 1946 7,90,900 00

4 %_Non transferable

Tho 1 Lawrence

Memorial School

(Lovodnle) Fund.

Treasury Note of 1863-

64 . .. 3 O , J I 8 - 87

Do. I873'73 • 41,400.00

Do. 1873-74 . 10,000'00

4-1/2 % Loan 1986 . 18,40000

3-1/2 % Loan 1990 . 16,00000

Fixed Deposits. . . i.oo.coo'OO

Short term Deposit. . 1,45,437-10 14

49 74.

,86,345-97 48,1

tative! of th"Govt.

of India of vrhoiii

one ihallbe from

the Ministry of

Education and Sci-

entific Research

and shall be the

Chairman, one shjQl

bo from the Minintiy

of Finance and "hill

be the Treasurer of

the School and one

shall be from the

Ministry of Defence.

(b) Four other mem-

ber* to be nomina-

ted by the Qovt. 01

Indliu

2

I,O6J-OO

35,400 00

3% Conversion Loan 1946 35,400' 00

The Vlt-torla Jub-

ilee Scholarship

Endowment Fund

at Mangtlore.

A Committee con-

Hjtfng of (1) Dt,

Judge, South Ka-

nara (2) President

District Board, S.

Kanara C3) The

Chairman, Munici-

pal Council, Man-

galore ond(4)Dlrtrict

Educational

Officer, South Ka-

nar> with the Dis-

trict (udwv South

Kanara as President,

Rs.

Ra.

R".

Rs.

6o-oo Intercut remitted . Pet paid to Govt. .

50-40 O-hO

60*00

208-26

••

Interest remitted . Fee pud 10 Govt. ,

2O6']B 2-o8 208-26

•1,500-00

1,05,102 37

li) 7,000'00

Interest remitted . (*) Other payments Fee paid to Govt. .

97,210-49 2,500-00 982-08

1,00,702-57

(j) Represents repaymi-iit pro- ceed* of (i) 4% B. M, Debt, for R". 2^500 repaid on 8-9-68. (ii) 4% B.P.T. Bonds for Rs. 4^300 repaid on 1-2-1969. (k) Reprolents cost ol purchase of

securltle"of

CO ^"3/4% Madrat Loan 1980 for Id. 2,500 mn4untlnfl to Rj. 2,438'5i and

(iO ™ un-lnvested balunce of Capital mnountlng to Rj.61 -49 which hat been returned to the Fund authorities.

7.743 'DC

1 Interest remitted. Fee pud to Govt.

7,663 5° 77-44

7.743-00

J 2,138'40

2,160-00 Intcrcat remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

21-60

2,lfiO'00

196,622-81 (c) Represents opening buhm. * 49,332-57

1.543-9° 15 60

98,182-31 Interestremitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

I.539-5O

(r) 1,409'68 || 2,471-68 Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt, .

1.519-65 15-35

1,335-OQ

936-68 (r) Rs. 966 t8 out of thin repre- sent! opening balance und the balance of Rs. 443-50 represents refund of scholarship amount.

R i.

R".

R..

9% Conversion Loan 1946 32,40O'OO

- The Director of

Collegiate Educatloi

1, Tniaiury Savings Do-

Madrai.

Potlt Certiflcate . aoo-oo

4/1% Madras Loan 1974 3,000 00

35,600-00

I.IIJOO

3 Jonnacadla Ran

plihChetty Col-

legiiu Scholar

"hlp Endowment

Fund it Madnu.

The Director oi

1 School Education

" 3% Convenlon Loan

• ™ I 9 4 6' ' • 1I.JOOO0

Grig? Memorial

"-ndowmtnt Fund

. Madrai.

Treaiury Savinga Dopo-

Madras & Collec-

tor, Madras.

12,600 00

3 8 9 00

•it Certlflcatea. . 1,10000

3% Conversion Loan

'946. . . , 300-00

The CUef Engineer

of the Southorn

Railway, Madras.

Trcaiury Savings De-

5 J. M. Bourne Me-

mori"l Endow-

ment Fund at

Madtai.

posit Certificate!. . 1,300 00

1,600 00

61 • 00

WEST BENGAL

i The Indian Peo-

3% Con version Loan

Board of Manaf a-

ment, New Delhi.

'94* . . 31,78,40000 31,

,73,400 00

98,352-00

ple • Famine

Trust.

Mugsa Board, Cal-

2 The Jewish Charl-

3% Conversion Loan

cutta.

t"ble Endowment

Fund.

1946 . . 38,000-00

3% Loan 1970-75 . 60,80000 1

98,800-00

2,964-00

3% Conversion Loan

1946. . . . 10,000 00

10,000-00

• • Civil Surjeon and Secy. General H01- pital Tru"t Fund Committee, Chltta- gong.

3 Tho Fund for the

Medical Relief

for Officers and

Seamen of the

Mercantile JMai

fine.

MADHYA PRADESH

i Niwub Sultan J"- I

loard of Governors 3% Conversion Loan

consitltni of tho 1946 . 9,34,400-00

following:— 4% M. P. Loin 1971 . 4,33,9000c 13,38,30000

45.088-00

tun Begum Edu-

cation Endow-

ment, BhopaU

CO Hii Hlffhnei.

SUcandtr Saulat

Iftakhar-ul-Mulk

Nawab Mohaouned

Hamidullah Khan;

U) Shri Mahablr

Fia"d Vorma

formerly Judge of

tho Bhopal High

Court;

(3) Shri Mohammed

Ahmed Aniari for-

merly JudBt of the

Bhopal Hljh Ck>ott;

W) Colonel Yunee-

mul-Mulk Nawab-

zada Rashiduiz-

Z*fir Khan Baha-

dur; and

C5) Mutamidul-Iniha

AU Quadir Sh"

Syed Mathuq All,

Secretary, barf-c-

Kh*s of HU High-

neii the Nawab of

Bhopal.

2 C P. & Berar iectetary to the Go- 3 % Loan 1896-97 . 19,00000

Kte" Edward vaming Body of the 4% M.f. Loan 1971 i,90,300'oo

Memorial Society King Edward M"mo- 3% Convowion Loan

Fund, rial Sodety, Naepur, 1946, . . . 2,41,800 00 4.J2.09O 00 15,463-00

RJ.

R J.

Rn.

R j.

• (i) Reptcteats opening balanc*

3,3""'oa

,74to8

3,836-08

Mi

Iotcrcit nmitted .

F" p"id to Oovt. .

469-26

4'74

474-00

3^57'88 (u) Rept""enu openinrbuliinite.

1,268-88

1,637'88

C")

(i>> Rspieasnti opening balenca.

485'57

M 414'37

485-37

•

..

98.331-00

97.368-48

Intetoit remitted .

FctpildtoGoTt. .

98,352-00

2,964-00

••

••

2,934-36

29-64

Intcioit remitted .

Fee psdd to Qovt, .

1.964- 00

(y) Rcpteacnts opening biiluic*.

[,339-35

Cy) i

1,389-15

..

Ota) Represent! opening balance-

(.ad)

43.313'44

"5-44

44,637-12

676-31

Interest icmittod .

Foe p"ld to Govt. .

43.313-44

(*4) Rtprejonti openug b*l*ncc.

15.539-31

77-31

Intorcjt [emitted -

F" paid to Govt. .

is.307'38

331-93

Ra.

Rs.

Rs.

6,100-00

3

4% M. P, Loan, 1071 .

3% Conversion Lrian

3,954-00

1,30,100 00

1,24,000-00

1946

C. P. Agriculture and Industries Improvement Fund.

Secretary to tho Governing Body of the Society of Agriculture and Industries, Nanpur

3,900-00

Bishop of Naepur. .

4

4% M.P. Loan tp7i 3% Conversion Loan.

iSS'OO

4,300-00

400-00

Anson Gardner Memorial Scho- larship Fund.

194S

Sowbhagyawati Inepcctresi of Sch- 3% Conversion Loan

9-00

300-00

300-00

1946

oou, Nagpur Circle, Naffpur.

Annsuyubal Pan- dit Silver Medal Fund.

•6

300-00

300-60

Sowbhagyawati Do.

12-OO

4% M. P. Loan 1971

Krlihnabai Bal Krishna Sule Prize Fund.

1,000,00 1,000 00

40-00 R. B. Bhanduji

4% M. P. Loan 1971

7

Tanai-dhan Chau- bal Ptlzo Fund. .

Secretary, Vidarbha Board of Secon- dary Hducatlon, Nagpur.

Secretary, Board 3% Conversion Loan

s

500-00

JOO-OO

194*.

15 O° of Education, M.P., Bhopal.

Ram Chandra Thakur Prize Fund.

2,300,00

4% M. P. Loan 1971

3% Conversion Loun

13,900-00 440-0°

11,600,00

1946.

Brovrnlnc Scholar- ship and Brown- ing Teacher Scho- Jarjhip fund.

Collector, Nagpur. Director of Public Instruclion, M. P., Bhopt] and Int- peotor of Schools. rJaspur.

IO

3% Conversion Loan

Hardinge Medal

2,100-00

63-0°

1,100 OOO

1946.

l''uad-

Director of Public Instruction, M. P., Bhopal.

600 00

24'00

4% M - P. Loan 1971

600-00

II

District Educatlonn] Officer, Bllaspur.

Meyhew and Spence Silver Medal Fund.

Pandit From"hankar Chief Executive Officer, 3% Conversion Loan

12

7,100 00

213-00

7,100-oo

Gangajh&nkai Taoapad Ssbha, 1946. Thakur Scholar- Damoh. ship l'und.

3% Conversion Loan

13

5,000-00

1946 . . ..

150 00

5,000-00

Rew" Shankir Pan- dya High School Soholarjhip Fund,

Divisional Superin- tendent of Edu- cation, Jabalpur.

3 % Conversion Loan

Laxmibai Scholar- District Educational Officer, Jab"lpur.

2,600 00

ship Fund.

1946-

2,600-00

78-00

Woodburn Stho- Principal, Rajkumar

J,300-oo

larship Fuad. Collego Roipur.

4% M. P, Loan I 9 "i 3% Conversion Loan

1946.

8,300-00 io,Hco 00

349 00

Rs.

Rs.

Rs.

Ra.

(ee) Represents opening balance.

3,9K3-8i

19-81

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

3,924-36 59-46

3,983-81

{dd) Represent! opening bftlancc.

0 - 84

168-84

(Afl

Interest remitted. , Fee paid to Govt. .

166-31 2-52

168-84

112-30 (M) Represents opening balance. 112'50

103-50

151-38 050 Represents opening b"Unce. 1^9 38 iSi-38

139-80 (gg) Represents opening balanctr. 99-80

139-80

CM)

(hh) Represents opening bulance O'oB

(hh)

15-08

14-84 0-24

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

15-08

(11) Represents opening balance. 2-20

441-20

"0

433-60 6-60

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .

443-30

(j)) Represents opening balance. 0-32

63'32

(jfi

Intercat remitted . Foe paid to Govt. .

62-3fi 0-96

63-31

C") Represents opening balance. 34-12

' b - ii

Crri

23-76 0-36

Inteceit remitLcd , Fee paid to Govt. .

24-12

114-07

(A*) Reprenentj opining bulunce. 1-07

(ft*)

no-8

Interest remitted . Fee paid to Govt. .