JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. A common question arises in these writ appeals and writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellants and the writ petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board constituted under Section 5(1) of the erstwhile Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. While they were in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board” for short), the Parliament enacted the Electricity Act, 2003, thereby repealing the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commissions Act, 1998. The Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the KSEB” for short) was thereafter incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956, by the Registrar of Companies, Kerala, on and with effect from 14.1.2011. Such incorporation was necessitated on account of the provisions contained in Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. In terms of the provisions contained in Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the State Government framed and issued the Kerala Electricity First Transfer Scheme, 2008, (Ext.P4 in W.P(C) No.29438 of 2016), which came into force on 25.9.2008. By that Scheme, all functions, properties and all interests, rights and liabilities of the Board as specified in the Schedule to the Scheme, were vested in the State Government. After the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEB) was incorporated on 14.1.2011, the State Government framed and issued the Kerala Electricity Second Transfer Scheme (Re-vesting), 2013, which came into force on 31.10.2013. By that Scheme, the functions, properties, interests and all rights and liabilities of the Board were re-vested in the KSEB. Ext.P6 in W.P(C).29438 of 2016 is a true copy thereof. By that scheme, the personnel of the Board were assigned to the service of the KSEB. 4. After the aforesaid exercise was carried out, certain employees of the KSEB moved this court by filing writ petitions wherein they inter alia sought enhancement of the retirement age from 56 years to 58 years. Some among the writ petitioners prayed for fixing their retirement age at 60. Their contention was based on Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. Some among the writ petitioners prayed for fixing their retirement age at 60. Their contention was based on Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. A few among the writ petitions were heard and dismissed by the learned single Judge by Ext.P10 judgment delivered on 16.3.2016, produced and marked in W.P(C). No.29438 of 2016. The writ appeals which arise from the said judgment, the writ petitions which were then pending and the writ petitions which were subsequently filed, are being disposed of by this common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the appellants and the petitioners are entitled to seek the intervention of this court to have their age of retirement fixed as 58 years. 5. We heard Sri. P.V. Mohanan, learned counsel who led the arguments for appellants and the writ petitioners as also Sri. K. Sasikumar, Sri. S. Jayakrishnan, Sri. K.R. Avinash, Sri. M. Mohammed Navaz and Sri. Murali Purushothaman appearing for the appellants/writ petitioners in the connected cases and Smt. A.G. Aneetha and Sri. M.K. Thankappan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB. 6. The main contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioners is based on the stipulations contained in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, more particularly the stipulation in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioners contend that at the time when Ext.P1 Standing Orders were certified by the Joint Labour Commissioner as per order dated 26.12.1996, he departed from paragraph 3 referred above and accepting the age of retirement set out in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1, certified the Standing Orders submitted for his approval. It is their contention that the stipulation in paragraph 37 of Ext. P1 runs counter to the Model Standing Orders and therefore, the stipulation regarding the retirement age contained in Ext.P1 has to be ignored and the age of retirement in paragraph 3 referred to above, preferred. They contend that on the terms of paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders in Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, they are entitled to continue in service up to 58 years. They contend that on the terms of paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders in Schedule 1-B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, they are entitled to continue in service up to 58 years. They also rely on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ AIR 1966 SC 1471 ] in support of their contentions in that regard. Learned counsel contended that the Certifying Officer has not in Ext.P1 stated the reasons which prompted him to depart from the retirement age stipulated in paragraph 3, that he has also not indicated that the adoption of the age of retirement stipulated in the Model Standing Orders is impractical and therefore, the stipulation in Ext.P1 Certified Standing Orders regarding the age of retirement has to be ignored and the age of retirement given in the Model Standing Orders preferred. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB contended that paragraph 3 relied on by the appellants and the writ petitioners does not stand in the way of the Workmen and the employer from coming to an agreement regarding the age of superannuation, that in the instant case, such an agreement was arrived at between the parties and it was thereupon that the age of superannuation was stipulated as 55 in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders. They further submit that in the wake of the enhancement of the age of retirement of Government servants from 55 to 56 years such enhancement was given to employees of the Board as well. Learned counsel for the respondent Board also contended that paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders does not stand in the way of the age of superannuation being fixed below 58 years and therefore, no exception can be taken to the stipulation regarding the retirement age in Ext.P1 Standing Orders. 8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. 8. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel on either side. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Learned counsel on both sides place reliance on paragraph 3 of Schedule 1-B to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, Paragraph 3 as it originally stood read thus: “(3) Age of retirement The age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which is binding on both the workman and the employer. Where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 60 years of age by the workman.” Schedule 1-B itself was introduced with effect from 17.1.1983. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1-B was amended with effect from 12.9.1984 and the figure 60' occurring in paragraph 3 was substituted with the figure 58' on and with effect from 12.9.1984. Paragraph 3 as amended reads thus : “(3) Age of retirement The age of retirement or superannuation of a workman shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an agreement or as specified in a settlement or award which is binding on both the workman and the employer. Where there is no such agreed age, retirement or superannuation shall be on completion of 58 years of age by the workman.” 9. It was thereafter that Ext.P1 Standing Orders were certified by the Joint Labour Commissioner as per order dated 26.12.1996. Paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 which deals which retirement of employees on superannuation reads as follows: “37. Retirement on superannuation (i) Every workman shall retire from the service of the Board on his attaining the age of superannuation which shall be 55, or at the age fixed by the Board as the age of retirement of the workman. (ii) The age set forth in service record of the workman shall be the basis for arriving at the age of retirement of a workman. (ii) The age set forth in service record of the workman shall be the basis for arriving at the age of retirement of a workman. (iii) It shall be open to the Board, in its discretion and in the best interest of the Board to retain a workman in service beyond the age of superannuation due to sufficient reason.” Clause (i) of paragraph 37 stipulates that every workman shall retire from service on his attaining the age of superannuation, which shall be 55 years or at the age fixed by the Board as the age of retirement of a workman. Clause (ii) stipulates that the age - set forth in the service record of the workman shall be the basis for arriving at the age of his/her retirement. Clause (iii) empowers the Board to retain a workman in service beyond the age of superannuation, if reasons exists in that regard. Such retention in service is at the discretion of and in the best interests of the Board. 10. While Sri. P.V. Mohanan and other learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioners contend that the Joint Labour Commissioner should not have certified the stipulation regarding the age of retirement contained in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 as it runs counter to paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders, the stand taken by the KSEB is that the stipulation regarding the retirement age is beyond challenge. It is evident from paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders that it is only in cases where there is no agreed age of retirement or superannuation of a workman that he or she will retire on completion of 58 years of age. The stipulation in paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders that “the age of retirement or superannuation of a workmen shall be as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman under an agreement” in our opinion permits the employer and the employee to arrive at an age of retirement for the purpose of incorporation of the same in the Standing Orders. It is stipulated in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders that every workman shall retire from the service of the KSEB on his attaining the age of 55 years or at the age fixed by the KSEB as the age of retirement of the workman. It is stipulated in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders that every workman shall retire from the service of the KSEB on his attaining the age of 55 years or at the age fixed by the KSEB as the age of retirement of the workman. There is nothing in paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders, which in our opinion, stood in the way of the Joint Labour Commissioner from certifying Ext.P1 Standing Orders. As paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders itself permits the workman and the employer to agree upon the age of superannuation, the appellants and the writ petitioners cannot in our opinion contend that the age of retirement should have been incorporated as 58 years in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1. The decision of the Apex Court in Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (Supra) does not in our opinion deal with this aspect of the matter. It is only in cases where a unilateral departure is made from the Model Standing Orders that the certifying officer has to be satisfied that insistence upon conformity with the Model Standing Orders may be impractical. 11. As stated earlier, nothing in paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders would stand in the way of a different age of retirement being stipulated in the Certified Standing Orders, provided there is agreement between the employer and the employees. It is only where there is no agreed age, that the age of retirement or superannuation specified in the Model Standing Orders will apply. In the instant case, for the past nearly 20 years no one has challenged the stipulation in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 regarding the age of retirement. It is also relevant in this context to note that Ext.P1 Standing Orders reserves freedom with the Board to fix the age of retirement. The Board has in fact enhanced the age of retirement from 55 years to 56 years on and with effect from 31.3.2012. Such enhancement was following the enhancement of the retirement age of Government servants from 55 years to 56 years. This was as per Board order dated 30.3.2012. 12. If as contended by the appellants and writ petitioners, paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders is bad in law and cannot govern the workmen, the Board could not have, in our opinion, revised the retirement age from 55 to 56 years. This was as per Board order dated 30.3.2012. 12. If as contended by the appellants and writ petitioners, paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 Standing Orders is bad in law and cannot govern the workmen, the Board could not have, in our opinion, revised the retirement age from 55 to 56 years. The appellants and the writ petitioners do not challenge the enhancement of the age of retirement by the Board from 55 years to 56 years on and with effect from 31.3.2012. Their attempt is to get the age of retirement fixed at 58 relying on paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders. In our considered opinion, the said contention is plainly untenable. On the terms of paragraph 3 of the Model Standing Orders, no exception can be taken to the stipulation regarding the age of retirement in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1. 13. Though it was contended before us that the terms of the transfer contained in Ext.P7 Re-vesting Scheme are less favourable to the appellants and writ petitioners, we find no merit or force in the said contention. Prior to the enactment and bringing into force of the Electricity Act, 2003, the age of retirement of employees of the Board was 55 years. After the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted, it was raised to 56 years from 31.3.2012. After Exts.P6 and P7 schemes were introduced, the age of retirement has not been reduced. It continues to be the same, namely 56 years. We, accordingly, over rule the contention based on the first proviso to sub section (2) of section 133 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In our opinion, the remedy of the appellants and the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the stipulation regarding the age of retirement in paragraph 37 of Ext.P1 lies under Section 10 of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. We also take note of the fact that none among the appellants and the writ petitioners are presently in service. All of them retired during the calender years 2016 and 2017 on attaining the age of 56 years. None of the employees who are presently in service are before us. Therefore, for that reason also we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment or with the age of retirement prescribed in Ext.P1 or with the existing age of retirement. None of the employees who are presently in service are before us. Therefore, for that reason also we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment or with the age of retirement prescribed in Ext.P1 or with the existing age of retirement. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no merit in these writ appeals and writ petitions. They fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.