http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIKPARISHAD AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1990

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1801            1990 SCR  (3) 282  1990 SCC  (1)   4        JT 1990 (3)   123  1990 SCALE  (2)14

ACT:     Industrial  Employment  (Standing  Orders)  Act,   1948: Sections   5   and  7  and  Clause  20   of   the   Standing Orders--Modification of Standing Order providing for  upward revision of age of superannuation-Whether valid.     Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947: Sections  9A,  12  and 18---’Settlement’--Arrived      at      in      conciliation proceedings--Binding nature of.

HEADNOTE:     The appellants are two different trade unions of Barauni Refinery  of the respondent, Indian Oil Corporation  Limited (IOCL). The IOCL is comprised essentially of two  divisions: (1)  Marketing  Division, and (2) Refinery  and  Pipe  Lines Division.  The  age of superannuation of the  staff  in  the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas for the Refinery and Pipe Lines Division it was fixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the Standing Orders concerning Barauni Refinery.     In December 1981, 14 recognised Unions representing  the employees  of the IOCL working in different  refineries  and pipe  lines  divisions submitted a charter  of  demands.  By clause 18 of this charter the superannuation age was  sought to be enhanced to 60 years. A similar charter of demands was separately  submitted  by  the  Barauni  Telshodhak  Mazdoor Union.     As  a  result of discussions a  general  settlement  was mutually  arrived at by and between the parties on  May  24, 1983.  Subsequently,  a separate  Memorandum  of  Settlement dated  4th  August,  1983 concerning  Barauni  Refinery  was signed by the parties under sections 12(3) and 18(3) of  the Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 in conciliation  proceedings. Both  the  general  settlement and  the  special  settlement concerning  Barauni  Refinery were to remain in  force  till 30th  April, 1986. Despite the specific demand made  in  the two charters of demand for the upward revision of the age of superannuation,  no  specific  provision was  made  in  that behalf  either in the general settlement or in  the  special settlement.  On the contrary, clause 19 of both the  settle- ments provided that the 283 terms and conditions of service which were not changed under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the  settlements shah remain unchanged and operative  during the period of settlement, further, clause 21 did not  permit raising  of any demand throwing an additional burden on  the corporation during that period.     Later,  the Petroleum and Chemical Mazdoor Union  served notice  on the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)  under section 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,  1948  for modification of clause 20 of  the  Certified Standing  Orders of Barauni Refinery for raising the age  of superannuation  from 58 years to 60 years. This  demand  was based  on the averment that the nature of work performed  by the  workmen  in the Refinery and Pipe  Lines  Division  and their  payscales were identical to the staff members of  the Marketing Division.     The Regional Labour Commissioner allowed the application for  modification  of clause 20 of  the  Certified  Standing Orders. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of  the Corporation, but at the same time directed a slight  modifi- cation in clause 20 of the Standing Orders.     The IOCL preferred a writ petition in the High Court for quashing  the orders of the Regional Labour Commissioner  as well  as  the Appellate Authority. On the  other  hand,  the Union,  feeling  aggrieved  by the order  of  the  Appellate Authority, preferred a writ petition against that order.     The  High  Court  inter alia held  that  the  settlement arrived  at in the conciliation proceedings was  binding  on the  workmen,  and as clause 19 of the settlement  kept  the service conditions which were not changed in tact and clause 21  of the settlement did not permit raising of  any  demand throwing an additional burden on the Corporation, it was not permissible  to modify the certified Standing Orders  by  an amendment,  as that would alter the service  conditions  and increase the financial burden on the management. Dismissing the appeals by the two trade unions this Court,     HELD:  (1) The Industrial Employment  (Standing  Orders) Act,  1948 was enacted to define with  sufficient  precision the conditions of employment for workers employed in  indus- trial  establishments  and to make the same known  to  them. [289B]     (2) According to sub-sections (1) and (3) of section  18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, settlements are divided into two  categories,  namely, (i) those arrived at  outside  the conciliation proceedings and (ii) 284 those arrived at in the course of conciliation  proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application  in  that  it merely binds the  parties  to  the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second catego- ry  has  extended  application since it is  binding  on  all parties to the industrial dispute. [292A-B]     (3)  A settlement arrived in the course of  conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding on  all workmen of the establishment, even those who  belong to  the  minority union which had objected to the  same.  To that  extent it departs from the ordinary law  of  contract. [292C]     (4)  The object is to uphold the sanctity of  settlement reached  with  the  active assistance  of  the  Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minor- ity union from scuttling the settlement. There is an  under- lying assumption that a settlement reached with the help  of the  Conciliation  Officer must be fair and  reasonable  and can,  therefore,  safely  be made binding not  only  on  the workmen  belonging to the union signing the  settlement  but also  on  others. The High Court was,  therefore,  right  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

coming  to  the  conclusion that the  settlement  dated  4th August,  1983 was binding on all the workmen of the  Barauni Refinery  including  the members of Petroleum  and  Chemical Mazdoor Union. [292D-E]     (5) The age of retirement prescribed by clause 20 of the Certified  Standing  Orders was undoubtedly a  condition  of service  which was kept in tact by clause 19 of the  settle- ment. [292G]     (6)  During the operation of the settlement it  was  not open  to the workmen to demand a change in clause 20 of  the certified Standing Orders because any upward revision of the age of superannuation would come in conflict with clauses 19 and 21 of the settlement. [293E-F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 93031 of 1990.     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.1989 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 1770 of 1987.     Hardev Singh, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani and Jitender Sharma for the Appellant. V.N. Koura and Ashok Grover for the Respondents. 285 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     AHMADI,  J.  These two appeals by  two  different  Trade Unions of Barauni Refinery are directed against the decision of the High Court of Delhi which set aside the  modification of Clause 20 of the Standing Orders certified under  Section 5  of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,  1946 (hereinafter  called ’the Standing Orders Act’).  The  brief facts giving rise to these two appeals are as under:     Two companies, namely, the Indian Refinery, Limited  and Indian  Oil Company, Limited amalgamated in 1964 and  a  new Company known as Indian Oil Corporation, Limited (IOCL)  was incorporated. This newly formed company comprised essential- ly of two divisions, namely, (1) Marketing Division,  repre- senting the staff, assets and business of Indian Oil  Compa- ny, Limited and (2) Refinery and Pipe Lines Division, repre- senting the staff, assets and oil refinery manufacturing  of petroleum  products of Indian Refinery, Limited. The age  of superannuation of the staff in the Marketing Division was 60 years whereas the age of superannuation for the Refinery and Pipe Lines Division was fixed at 58 years under Clause 20 of the  Standing Orders concerning Barauni Refinery.  The  IOCL has  refineries in different parts of the country  including one  at Barauni. The Standing Orders concerning the  Barauni Refinery  came into force on 5th December, 1964 as  provided by  Section  7 of the Standing Orders Act and apply  to  all workmen  employed  in  the  said  industrial  establishment. Clause 20 of the Standing Orders reads as under: "Every employee shall retire from service on completing  the age  of 58 years. Extension for a maximum period of 5  years but not for more than one year at a time may be given at the discretion of the company provided the employee is certified to  be  fit by the Company’s Medical  Officer  and  provided further  that the employee concerned also consents  to  such extension." By  a Joint letter dated 15th December, 1981, 14  recognised Unions  representing  the employees of the IOCL  working  in different  refineries and pipe lines divisions  submitted  a charter of demands in terms of clause 2.1.3 of the long term settlement  dated 3rd December, 1979. By clause 18  of  this charter  of demands the superannuation age was sought to  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

enhanced  to  60 years. A similar charter  of  demands  was’ forwarded  by  the Barauni Telshodhak Mazdoor Union  to  the General 286 Manager,  IOCL,  Barauni Refinery, on 23rd  December,  1981. Pursuant  to  the presentation of this charter  of  demands, meetings  were  held between the Management of IOCL (R  &  P Division)  and  the recognised Unions of the  said  Division from  time to time. As a result of discussions held  at  the said  meetings as settlement was mutually arrived at by  and between  the parties on May 24, 1983. Clauses 19 and  21  of this  general settlement concerning all the  Refineries  and Pipe Lines Divisions, inter alia provided as under: "19.  The Corporation agrees that such terms and  conditions of  service as well as amenities and allowances as  are  not changed  under  this settlement shall remain  unchanged  and operative during the period of the settlement." "21. The Unions agree that during the period of operation of this  settlement,  they shall not raise  any  demand  having financial burden on the Corporation other than bonus provid- ed that this Clause shall not affect the rights and  obliga- tions  of  the parties in regard to  matters  covered  under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." This general settlement was to remain in force from 1st May, 1982 to 30th April, 1986. After this general settlement  was signed  by  the Management and the Union  representatives  a separate Memorandum of Settlement dated 4th August, 1983 was signed between the IOCL (R & P Division), Barauni  Refinery, and their workmen represented by Barauni Telshodhak  Mazdoor Union,  Barauni Refinery, under sections 12(3) and 18(3)  of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in conciliation  proceed- ings  initiated  by the Assistant  Labour  Commissioner  and Conciliation Officer, Begusarai. This settlement too was  to remain  in  force from 1st May, 1982 to  30th  April,  1986. Clauses 19 and 21 of this settlement were verbatim reproduc- tion of those in the general settlement dated 24th May, 1983 extracted hereinabove. It may here be mentioned that despite the  specific demand made in the charter of demands for  the upward  revision of the age of superannuation,  no  specific provision  was  made in that behalf either  in  the  general settlement  or in the special settlement concerning  Barauni Refinery. On the contrary clause 19 of both the  settlements provides that the terms and conditions of service which  are not changed under the Settlement shall remain unchanged  and operative during the period of settlement.     The  Petroleum  and Chemical Mazdoor Union  through  its General  Secretary,  Ram Vinod Singh, served notice  on  the Regional 287 Labour  Commissioner  (Central) under Section 10(2)  of  the Standing  Orders  Act for modification of clause 20  of  the certified  Standing Orders of Barauni Refinery  for  raising the  age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years  mainly on the ground that the staff members working in the  Market- ing  Division  superannuated  on completing the  age  of  60 years.  It  was also contended by the said  Union  that  the demand for the upward revision of the age of  superannuation could  not be pressed at the time of the settlement  arrived at  pursuant  to the charter of demands because the  age  of retirement  was fixed at 58 years under the relevant  certi- fied Standing Orders. It was, therefore, felt necessary that clause  20  of the certified Standing Orders  applicable  to Barauni Refinery of the IOCL should be got suitably modified to raise the age of retirement to 60 years. This demand  was based  on the averment that the nature of work performed  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  workmen  in the Refinery and Pipe  Lines  Division  was identical  to  that performed by the staff  members  of  the Marketing  Division. The pay-scales of the employees of  the Refinery  Division and Marketing Division were also  identi- cal.  It was, therefore, contended that there was  no  valid reason  for  fixing different ages for  retirement  for  the staff members working in the said two Divisions of IOCL.     The Regional Labour Commissioner after heating the rival parties  allowed the application for modification of  clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders. By his order he direct- ed that clause 20 should be modified as under: "Normally  the age of retirement of workman of the  Corpora- tion is fixed at 60 years. No notice is required to be given by a workman of his intention to retire on superannuation or by the Management to the workman that he is due to reach the age  of superannuation on certain date. The  workman  should not,  however,  leave his place of duty  without  being  re- lieved." Against this order of 11th October, 1984, the IOCL preferred an  appeal to the Appellate Authority under Section  6  read with Section 10(3) of the Standing Orders Act. The Appellate Authority  while  dismissing the appeal  directed  a  slight modification in clause 20 of the Standing Orders. Clause  20 as modified by the Appellate Authority was worded as under: "Every  workman shall generally retire on attaining the  age of 58 years. Between the 57th and 58th year Company’s 288 Medical  Officer would conduct the medical test and  if  the workman is found to be medically fit he shall be retained in service for a period of two more years beyond the age of  58 years i.e. upto 60 years." Feeling  aggrieved by this order of the Appellate  Authority the  IOCL preferred a writ petition No. CWP No.  1717/87  in the  High Court at Delhi for quashing the impugned order  of the  Certifying  Officer dated 11th October,  1984  and  the impugned  order  of the Appellate Authority dated  4th  May, 1987.  The  Union which had initiated  the  proceedings  for modification  of Clause 20 of the certified Standing  Orders also  felt  aggrieved  by the said order  of  the  Appellate Authority  and preferred a writ petition No. CWP 3417/87  in the  High  Court of Delhi. Both these  writ  petitions  were heard  by a Division Bench and were disposed of by a  common Judgment.  The writ petition filed by the IOCL  was  allowed while the other writ petition was dismissed.     While  hearing these two writ petitions the  High  Court formulated two points for consideration, namely, (i) "Wheth- er  the Certifying Authority under the Standing  Orders  Act has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for  amend- ment  of a Standing Order which fixes the age of  retirement of  the workmen as 58 years which is in consonance with  the model  Standing Order and enhances the age of retirement  to 60  years  without first giving any finding  whether  it  is practicable to give effect to the model Standing Order"  and (ii) "Whether the settlement arrived at under Section  18(3) and  Section  19(2) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947, between the petitioner and the workmen represented by  their recognised majority union and which settlement was in  force when  impugned  orders  were made, had put any  bar  on  the rights of the workmen to approach the authorities under  the said  Act  for seeking modification of the  Standing  Orders with regard to the fixation of the age of superannuation  of the workmen". The High Court answered the first question  in the  affirmative holding that it was open to the  Certifying Authority  to entertain an application for  modification  of the clause fixing the date of superannuation, the provisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

in the model Standing Orders, notwithstanding. On the second point the High Court came to the conclusion that the settle- ment  arrived at in conciliation proceedings was binding  on the  workmen  and as clause 19 of the  settlement  kept  the service conditions which were not changed in-tact and clause 21  of the settlement did not permit raising of  any  demand throwing an additional financial burden. on the IOCL, it was not  permissible to modify the certified Standing Orders  by an amendment as that would alter the service condition and 289 increase  the  financial burden on the Management.  In  this view  that the High Court took it quashed the orders  passed by  the two authorities below and made the rule in  CWP  No. 1717/87  absolute while dismissing CWP No. 3417/87  with  no order  as to costs. It is against this order that the  Trade Unions have approached this Court.     The  Standing  Orders  Act was enacted  to  define  with sufficient precision the conditions of employment for  work- ers  employed in industrial establishments and to  make  the same  known to them. The object of the Act was to have  uni- form Standing Orders in respect of the matters enumerated in the  schedule  to the Act regardless of the  time  of  their appointment. With this in view the Act was enacted to  apply to all industrial establishments wherein 100 or more workmen were employed on any date of-the preceding 12 months. Within six  months  from the date on which this  enactment  becomes applicable  to an industrial establishment, the employer  is obliged  by  Section 3 to submit to the  Certifying  Officer draft  Standing Orders proposed by him for adoption  in  his industrial establishment. Sub-section (2) of Section 3  lays down  that in such draft Standing Orders provision shall  be made  for every matter set out in the schedule which may  be applicable  to the industrial establishment and where  model Standing  Orders  have been prescribed shall be, so  far  as practicable,  in conformity with such model. Section 4  pro- vides  that the Standing Orders shall be certifiable if  (a) provision  is made therein for every matter set out  in  the schedule which is applicable to the industrial establishment and (b) the Standing Orders are otherwise in conformity with the  provisions of the Act. It further casts a duty  on  the Certifying Officer or Appellate Authority to adjudicate upon the  fairness  and reasonableness of the provisions  of  any Standing  Orders. On receipt of the draft  Standing  Orders, section 5 requires the Certifying Officer to forward a  copy thereof to the trade union, if any, of the workmen, or where there is no such trade union, to the workmen in such  manner as  may  be prescribed, together with a notice in  the  pre- scribed form requiring objections, if any, which the workmen desire to make to the draft Standing Orders. Thereafter  the Certifying  Officer must hear the concerned authorities  and decide whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft submitted by the employers is necessary to render  the draft Standing Orders certifiable under the Act. He is  then expected to certify the draft Standing Orders with modifica- tions, if any, and send authenticated copies thereof in  the prescribed  manner  to the employer, to the trade  union  or other  prescribed  representatives of the workmen  within  7 days. Section 6 provides for an appeal against the order  of the Certifying Officer. The Appellate Authority has to com- 290 municate  its  decision to the Certifying  Officer,  to  the employer and the trade union or other prescribed representa- tive  of  the  workmen within 7 days from the  date  of  its order.  Section 7 provides that the Standing  Orders  shall, unless  an appeal is preferred, come into operation  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

expiry  of  30  days from the date  on  which  authenticated copies  thereof  are  sent under section 5(3)  or  where  an appeal  is preferred, on the expiry of 7 days from the  date on which copies of the orders of the Appellate Authority are sent  under section 6(2). Standing Orders duly certified  as above  for the Barauni Refinery came into operation  on  5th December,  1964  as provided by section 7. We then  come  to Section  10  which provides for  modification  of  certified Standing  Orders.  Subsection (1) thereof  states  that  the Standing  Orders  finally  certified shall  not,  except  on agreement  between the employer and the workmen or  a  trade union or other representative body of the workmen be  liable to modification until the expiry of six months from the date on which the Standing Orders or the last modification there- of came into operation. Sub-section (2) of Section 10  reads as under: "Subject  to the provisions of sub-section (1), an  employer or workman or a trade union or other representative body  of the workman may apply to the Certifying Officer to have  the standing  orders  modified, and such  application  shall  be accompanied by five copies of the modifications proposed  to be  made,  and where such modifications are proposed  to  be made by agreement between the employer and the workmen or  a trade  union or other representative body of the workmen,  a certified  copy of that agreement shall be filed along  with the application." It was under this provision that clause 20 of the  certified Standing Orders was sought to be modified.     Since the High Court has answered the first point in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the workmen, we do not consid- er  it necessary to deal with that aspect of the matter  and would confine ourselves to the second aspect which  concerns the binding character of the settlement. Section 2(p) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 defines a  settlement  as  a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceed- ings  and includes a written agreement between the  employer and  workmen  arrived  at otherwise than in  the  course  of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by  the parties thereto in such manner as may be  prescribed and  a copy thereof has been sent to the officer  authorised in this behalf by the appropriate 291 Government and the Conciliation Officer. Section 4  provides for  the appointment of Conciliation Officers by the  appro- priate Government. Section 12(1) says that where any  indus- trial  dispute  exists or is  apprehended  the  Conciliation Officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utili- ty  service  and a notice under Section 22 has  been  given, shall,  hold  conciliation  proceedings  in  the  prescribed manner.  Sub-section (2) of Section 12 casts a duty  on  the Conciliation  Officer  to investigate the  dispute  and  all matters  connected  therewith with a view  to  inducing  the parties  to arrive at a fair and amicable settlement of  the dispute. If such a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation  proceedings,  sub-section  (3)  requires   the Conciliation Officer to send a report thereof to the  appro- priate Government together with the memorandum of settlement signed  by  the parties to the dispute. Section  18(1)  says that  a settlement arrived at by agreement between  the  em- ployer  and the workmen otherwise than in the course of  the conciliation proceedings shall be binding on the parties  to the  agreement. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 next  provides as under: "A  settlement  arrived  at in the  course  of  conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of  Section  10-A or award of a Labour  Court,  Tribunal  or National  Tribunal  which has become  enforceable  shall  be binding on-- (a) all parties to the industrial dispute: (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the  proceedings as  parties  to the dispute, unless the  Board,  arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,  records the opinion that they were so summoned  without proper cause: (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect  of the establishment to which the dispute relates: (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed  of workmen, all persons who were employed  in  the establishment  or part of the establishment as the case  may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the  dispute and  all  persons who subsequently become employed  in  that establishment or part." 292 It  may be seen on a plain reading of sub-sections  (1)  and (3)  of  section 18 that settlements are  divided  into  two categories, namely, (i) those arrived at outside the concil- iation  proceedings and (ii) those arrived at in the  course or’ conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs  to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds  the parties to the agreement but the  settlement  be- longing  to  the second category  has  extended  application since  it is binding on all parties to the  industrial  dis- pute,  to  all  others who were summoned to  appear  in  the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in  the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case  may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the  dispute and  to all others who joined the establishment  thereafter. Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of concili- ation  proceedings with a recognised majority union will  be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those  who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The  object obviously is to uphold the sanctity  of  settle- ments reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minor- ity union from scuttling the settlement. There is an  under- lying assumption that a settlement reached with the help  of the  Conciliation  Officer must be fair and  reasonable  and can,  therefore,  safely  be made binding not  only  on  the workmen  belonging to the Union signing the  settlement  but also  on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in  the course  of  conciliation proceedings is put on par  with  an award made by an adjudicatory authority. The High Court was, therefore,  right in coming to the conclusion that the  set- tlement dated 4th August, 1983 was binding on all the  work- men of the Barauni Refinery including the members of  Petro- leum and Chemical Mazdoor Union.     The settlement does not make any specific mention  about the age of retirement. Clause 19 of the settlement, however, provides  that such terms and conditions of service  as  are not changed under this settlement shall remain unchanged and operative  for  the  period of the settlement.  The  age  of retirement prescribed by clause 20 of the certified Standing Orders was undoubtedly a condition of service which was kept intact by clause 19 of the settlement. The provisions of the Standing Orders Act to which we have adverted earlier clear- ly show that the purpose of the certified Standing Orders is to  define with sufficient precision the conditions  of  em-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

ployment of workman and to acquaint them with the same.  The charter  of demands contained several matters  touching  the conditions  of  service  including the  one  concerning  the upward revision of the age of retirement. After deli- 293 beration certain conditions were altered while in respect of others  no change was considered necessary. In the  case  of the latter clause 19 was introduced making it clear that the conditions  of service which have not changed  shall  remain unchanged  i.e. they will continue as they are.  That  means that the demand in respect of revision of the age of retire- ment was not acceded to.     By  clause  21 of the settlement extracted  earlier  the Union agreed that during the period of the operation of  the settlement they shall not raise any demand which would throw an additional financial burden on the management, other than bonus. Of course the proviso to that clause exempted matters covered under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act from the  application of the said clause. However, section 9A  is not  attracted  in  the present case. The  High  Court  was, therefore, right,in observing: "when the settlement had been arrived at between the workmen and the company and which  is still in force, the parties are to remain bound by the terms of  the said settlement. It is only after the settlement  is terminated that the parties can raise any dispute for  fresh adjudication". The argument that the upward revision of  the age  of superannuation will not entail any financial  burden cannot  be  accepted.  The High Court  rightly  points  out: "workmen  who remain in service for a longer period have  to be paid a larger amount by way of salary, bonus and gratuity than  workmen who may newly join in place of retiring  men". The High Court was, therefore, right in concluding that  the upward revision of the age of superannuation would throw  an additional  financial burden on the management in  violation of clause 21 of the settlement. Therefore, during the opera- tion  of  the settlement it was not open to the  workmen  to demand  a  change  in clause 20 of  the  certified  Standing Orders because any upward revision of the age of superannua- tion  would  come in conflict with clause 19 and 21  of  the settlement.  We  are,  therefore, of the  opinion  that  the conclusion reached by the High Court is unassailable.      In  view of the above we see no merit in these  appeals and dismiss them with no order as to costs. Interim orders in each appeal will stand dissolved. R.S.S.                                Appeals dismissed. 294