ORDER : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Hindustan Zinc Limited (‘HZL’) aggrieved against the awards dated 14/12/2018 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur (“the LC), whereby, the LC came to the conclusion that reduction of age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years and retiring the workmen Kedarnath Joshi on 30/9/2010 and Bagh Singh on 31/5/2010 was not just & legal and directed payment of salary and allowances etc. to the workmen for the said period of two years. 2. The respondents-workmen filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8895/2010 and 513/2011, respectively challenging their superannuation at the age of 58 years. A coordinate bench of this Court on 10/2/2011 after considering the complicated questions of fact and law involved relegated the petitioners to get their dispute resolved through adjudicating machinery prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act’). 3. The appropriate Government by its reference orders dated 29/3/2011 & 20/4/2011, respectively, referred the disputes to the LC. 4. The workmen filed their statements of claim inter alia indicating that they were appointed by HZL on 27/10/1978 and 30/11/1976 on the post of Helper-II and Helper, respectively. The workmen were accorded promotions during the course of their employment and retired from the position of Assistant Foreman. 5. It was then indicated that an order dated 19/5/1998 was issued by the Central Government and in compliance thereof the HZL also issued an order dated 20/5/1998, whereby, the age of retirement, which was 58 years as per the Standing Orders, was amended to 60 years and the same was implemented with immediate effect. 6. In the year 2002, under the policy of the Central Government, disinvestment in the HZL took place and in the agreement, a condition was imposed that those working with the company, their service conditions would not be changed and, therefore, the workmen were entitled to remain in service till the age of 60 years. It was submitted that though the workmen were entitled to remain in service till 30/9/2012 and 31/5/2012, respectively, the workman Kedarnath was informed on 31/8/2010 regarding his impending retirement w.e.f. 30/9/2010. It was submitted that though the workmen were entitled to remain in service till 30/9/2012 and 31/5/2012, respectively, the workman Kedarnath was informed on 31/8/2010 regarding his impending retirement w.e.f. 30/9/2010. It was claimed that for the first time the workmen came to know regarding rules, whereby, the age of retirement from 60 years was amended back to 58 years in company’s Board meeting No. 261 dated 26/4/2003, based on the said averment, reliefs seeking declaration of retirement at the age of 58 years as illegal and entitlement to remain in service till 60 years of age and emoluments etc. for the said period were claimed. 7. The statements of claim were responded by HZL inter alia indicating that the Standing Orders of the company were certified on 20/10/1972 and under Rule 16(6) the retirement age was fixed at 58 years. It was claimed that the order dated 19/5/1998 issued by the Central Government was only an administrative direction, following which the order was issued on 20/5/1998, however, the Standing Orders were not amended. 8. Further submissions were made that the claim of the workmen that they were not aware of the order dated 26/4/2003 was false and baseless. The order was published on notice board of the company and since 2003, 56 employees were retired at the age of 58 years including 11 from the mechanical department in which the workman Kedarnath was working and, therefore, raising of dispute after seven years was liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches. It was claimed that the retirement is as per law and, therefore, the workmen were not entitled for any relief. 9. A replication was filed by the workmen inter alia claiming that amendment in the service conditions cannot be made without giving notice and in absence of a tripartite settlement in this regard. Further submissions were made that the order was neither published on the notice board nor the same was circulated nor was forwarded to the Union and, therefore, the information cannot be attributed. 10. On behalf of the workmen, they filed their own affidavits in evidence and were cross examined. No evidence was produced by the HZL. 11. The LC after hearing the parties, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 10. On behalf of the workmen, they filed their own affidavits in evidence and were cross examined. No evidence was produced by the HZL. 11. The LC after hearing the parties, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 195 , came to the conclusion that the order dated 26/4/2003, whereby, the age of superannuation was reduced from 60 years to 58 years w.e.f. 1/5/2003, was in violation of Section 9-A of the Act and Rule 34 and Form E of the Rajasthan Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules, 1958’)-Regarding the issue of delay, it was held that the workmen were informed immediately before the date of retirement, when they approached the High Court and as no opportunity of hearing was accorded it cannot be said that there was any delay and consequently passed the awards as noticed hereinbefore. 12. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner - HZL made submissions that the finding recorded by the LC regarding violation of provisions of Section 9-A of the Act is factually incorrect inasmuch as the order dated 26/4/2003 was published on the notice board, which was sufficient compliance of the requirements of provisions of law, which aspect was ignored by the LC and, therefore, the awards deserve to be set aside. 13. Further submissions were made that the judgment in the case of Paradeep Phosphates (supra) was delivered in the circumstances of the said case and as such the same is not a binding precedent. 14. Further submissions were made that the determination of issue pertaining to delay by the LC is not justified inasmuch as it was apparent that the workmen had the knowledge about passing of the order dated 26/4/2003 on account of large number of retirements which took place between 2003 to 2010 and a specific averment in this regard was made in the reply to the statement of claim, which was not denied and, therefore, on account of delay and laches, the awards deserve to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. vs. T.T. Murali Babu : (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 15. Reliance was placed on Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. vs. T.T. Murali Babu : (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 15. Another aspect which was raised with much vehemence by learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to implication of settlement as arrived at between the management and the recognized trade unions in terms of provisions of Section 12(3) and 18 of the Act. Though, the said aspect appears to have not been raised before the LC, with reference to the Charter of Demands dated 26/6/1997 and Memorandum of Settlement dated 17/1/2001 (Annex. 17) and Charter of Demands dated 12/3/2007 and Memorandum of Settlement dated 13/11/2009 (Annex. 18), it was emphasized that a demand was raised in both the Charters for increasing the retirement age of employees from 58 years to 60 years, whereafter the settlements were arrived at, wherein, the demand with regard to increase in retirement age was not acceded to and, therefore, in view of express provision of Section 12(3) and 18 of the Act the said settlements were binding on all the workmen. The settlements were not challenged at any point of time and not even in the present dispute and, therefore, the relief sought being contrary to the settlements could not have been granted by the LC. 16. Reliance was placed on Transmission Corporation, A.P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. P. Ramachandra Rao & Anr. (2006) 9 SCC 623 , K.C.P. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. : (1996) 10 SCC 446 . 17. A feeble attempt was made to rely on the order dated 19/9/2016 passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 33290/2010 and few other writ petitions, however, when based on the contents of the said order queries were put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the said submission. 18. In a nutshell, it was submitted that notice as required by Section 9-A of the Act was given but was ignored, large number of employees retired between 2003 to 2010, which indicates knowledge to the workmen, therefore, delay should have been taken note of by the LC and that settlements arrived at were binding, therefore, awards being contrary to the settlements could not have been passed by the LC. It was prayed that the awards impugned be quashed and set aside. 19. It was prayed that the awards impugned be quashed and set aside. 19. Learned counsel appearing on caveat made submissions that all the issues sought to be raised in the present writ petition stand squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradeep Phosphates (supra), which applies on all force to the cases in hand and the submissions made contrary to the said judgment have no basis and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed on this count alone. It was submitted that besides the fact that no proof regarding the order dated 26/4/2003 having been published on notice boards has been produced, the order issued is in gross violation of provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, which envisages a notice before any decision to change the conditions of service is taken, which notice is admittedly missing. 20. It was submitted that the workmen in their affidavits clearly denied the knowledge of order dated 26/4/2003 and though they were subjected to cross examination, no cross examination on the said aspect was made. Submissions were made that as soon as the workmen become aware of their impending retirement at the age of 58 years, they immediately approached this Court by filing writ petitions questioning the validity of the orders, the writ petitions were not entertained and the petitioners were relegated to the remedy before the LC, which was availed by the workmen immediately and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any delay on their part in questioning the age of retirement being contrary to law. 21. On the issue regarding settlement raised by the petitioner, it was submitted that the said aspect was not raised before the LC, however, as the demand regarding increasing the retirement age vide Charter of Demands dated 26/6/1997 was raised before the increased age was implemented by the HZL, the settlement dated 17/1/2001 is of no consequence. With regard to Charter of Demands dated 12/3/2007, it was submitted that though demand has been indicated in the said Charter, as there has been no settlement/rejection in the settlement dated 13/11/2009 (Annex. 18), the said settlement also would have no implication and the submissions made in this regard being without any basis deserve to be ignored. With regard to Charter of Demands dated 12/3/2007, it was submitted that though demand has been indicated in the said Charter, as there has been no settlement/rejection in the settlement dated 13/11/2009 (Annex. 18), the said settlement also would have no implication and the submissions made in this regard being without any basis deserve to be ignored. It was prayed that the writ petitions filed by the HZL be dismissed and they be directed to implement the award without any further delay. 22. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the record summoned from the LC. 23. At the outset it may be noticed that the judgment in the case of Paradeep Phosphates (supra), which has been heavily relied on by the LC and learned counsel for the workmen, deals with all the basic legal aspects, which arise in the present cases. In the case of Paradeep Phosphates (supra), another public sector undertaking like the petitioner-HZL, before its disinvestment, wherein also, based on the Govt. of India order dated 19/5/1998 the superannuation age of the employees was increased from 58 years to 60 years; shareholding in the said company was also divested by Government of India and by order dated 17/7/2002 the increased age of retirement was withdrawn and in the said case also the certified standing orders provided for age of retirement as 58 years only but when dispute was raised before the LC, the LC found contravention of Section 9-A of the Act. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the facts, which were quite similar to the facts of the present cases, came to the conclusion that enhancing the superannuation age would amount to ‘privilege’ and therefore, before change, compliance of Section 9-A of the Act was necessary; even if the enhancement of superannuation age was without amendment in the certified standing orders, the same could not be unilaterally withdrawn without following the mechanism of Section 9-A of the Act. To the said extent, the subject matter of present writ petitions stands covered by the said judgment. 25. To the said extent, the subject matter of present writ petitions stands covered by the said judgment. 25. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment while indicating the point for consideration indicated that ‘in light of the present facts and circumstances of the case’, the judgment cannot be treated as a precedent has no basis inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court after a detailed discussion regarding requirements of Section 9-A and its implication in the case before it has laid down certain principles, which enunciates the ratio while interpreting the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment is not a binding precedent. 26. Coming to the submissions regarding compliance of provisions of Section 9-A of the Act based on the fact that the order dated 26/4/2003 was published/pasted on the notice board, it would be appropriate to reproduce the order, which reads as under: “No. Pers/R/2(6)/C5/303 April 26, 2003 ORGANISATION ADVICE Sub: Age of retirement of Executives and workmen restoring to 58 years. Considering the overall organizational requirements, Board of Directors of the Company in its 261st meeting have decided to roll back the age of retirement of the executives and workmen of the company from the present 60 years to 58 years w.e.f. 1st May, 2003. Accordingly, the restoration of the age of retirement is to be regulated as follows: (a) those executives/workmen who are presently on the rolls of the company and going to attain or have attained the age of 58 years on or before 31st May, 2003 shall retire from the services of the company on close of office hours of 31st May, 2003. (b) those executives/workmen who attain the age of 58 years after 31st May, 2003 shall retire from the services of the company on close of office hours of the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 58 years, The existing provisions on medical examination at the age of 55 years in respect of underground workmen shall continue and other conditions will remain unaltered. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority. Sd/- (K.V. Rajendran) Distribution: All Unit Heads All Unit Personnel Heads All Unit Fin. Heads All Liaison & Sales Offices All Heads of Department, HO All Secretaries of the R. Union through Unit Pers. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority. Sd/- (K.V. Rajendran) Distribution: All Unit Heads All Unit Personnel Heads All Unit Fin. Heads All Liaison & Sales Offices All Heads of Department, HO All Secretaries of the R. Union through Unit Pers. Head All Notice Boards” 27. A perusal of the said order would reveal that the Board of Directors took a decision in its 261st meeting to roll back the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years w.e.f. 1/5/2003 and accordingly it was ordered to be regulated in the manner indicated in the order. 28. It has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paradeep Phosphates (supra) that alteration in the age of retirement requires compliance of Section 9-A of the Act. 29. Relevant provision of Section 9-A of the Act reads as under: “9-A. Notice of change.- No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change,- (a) Without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice/in the prescribed manner/of the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or (b) With twenty-one days of giving such notice:” 30. A perusal of the above provision reveals that for effecting any change in conditions of service applicable to any workman, it is pre-requisite that a notice is given to the workman likely to be affected by such change in the prescribed manner and such change cannot be made within 21 days of giving of such notice. The prescribed manner as indicated in Section 9-A has been laid down in Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958, which is pari materia with Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules of 1957’). 31. Rule 34 of Rules of 1958 along with Form E reads as under: “34. Notice of change. The prescribed manner as indicated in Section 9-A has been laid down in Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958, which is pari materia with Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (‘the Rules of 1957’). 31. Rule 34 of Rules of 1958 along with Form E reads as under: “34. Notice of change. - Any employer intending to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall give notice of such intention in Form E. [The notice shall be displayed conspicuously by the employer on a notice board at the main entrance of the establishment, and in the Managers office: Provided that where a registered union exists a copy of the notice shall also be served on the Secretary of the union.] [Form E] (See rule 34) Notice of change of service conditions prescribed by an employer. Name of employer............ Address....... Dated the.........day of............ In accordance with section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, I/we hereby give notice to all concerned that it is my/our intention to effect the change/changes specified in the annexure, with effect from.....in the conditions of service applicable to workmen in respect of the matters specified to the Fourth Schedule to the said Act. Signature... Designation.... (Here specify the change/changes intended to be effected)” 32. A perusal of the above provisions and the Form indicates that the requirement is to give a prior notice before effecting the intended change and that a decision can only be arrived at after the notice pertaining to intended change in conditions of service has been given to the affected person and not by way of a post decisional hearing. 33. A look at the order dated 26/4/2003 clearly indicates a decision having been taken by the Board of Directors in its 261st meeting and ordering of its implementation within five days from the date of order, the date of 261st meeting of the Board of Directors is not on record. 33. A look at the order dated 26/4/2003 clearly indicates a decision having been taken by the Board of Directors in its 261st meeting and ordering of its implementation within five days from the date of order, the date of 261st meeting of the Board of Directors is not on record. The fact that the said decision was allegedly pasted on the notice boards cannot be taken as compliance of Section 9-A, as the order nowhere indicates any intention to change the retirement age but only announces the decision having been taken by the Board of Directors and, therefore, the plea raised regarding compliance of provisions of Section 9-A of the Act along with Rules cannot be countenanced, on the contrary the order dated 26/4/2003 is in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 9-A of the Act and the Rules of 1958. 34. The plea of binding settlement as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner apparently has no substance. In Charter of Demand dated 26/6/1997 the Union had raised demand under miscellaneous points requiring increase in the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. In the Memorandum of settlement which was arrived at on 17/1/2001, there was no settlement on the age of retirement, however, a specific stipulation was indicated in the terms of settlement which reads as under: “3. Representatives of Federation and Unions agreed to drop the demands, which have not been expressly agreed to in terms of settlement referred in Chapter-I to IX.” 35. However, the said demand and terms of settlement have to be examined from the point of view that after the demand was raised on 26/6/1997 the age was enhanced with effect from 20/5/1998 and till the settlement was arrived at on 17/1/2001 the same was in currency till 26/4/2003 and, therefore, the demand raised prior to enhancement of age and the terms of settlement before roll back has no implication. 36. In the Charter of Demands dated 12/3/2007 the demand was again included under miscellaneous points seeking increase in the retirement age of employees from 58 years to 60 years. 36. In the Charter of Demands dated 12/3/2007 the demand was again included under miscellaneous points seeking increase in the retirement age of employees from 58 years to 60 years. However, in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 13/11/2009 though there was no reference to the demand pertaining to enhancing the retirement age but the most outstanding feature of the settlement is that a similar stipulation, as made in the terms of settlement dated 17/1/2001, regarding dropping the demands which have not been expressly agreed to in the terms of settlement is missing from the settlement dated 13/11/2009, which necessarily means that there was no settlement pertaining to the age of retirement and/or it cannot be said that the settlement agreed for maintaining the age at 58 years and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner company with reference to provisions of section 12(3) and 18 of the Act, in the absence of any settlement on the issue of age of retirement, cannot be accepted. 37. The judgments in the case of Transmission Corporation (supra) and K.C.P. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, would have no application to the facts of the present case as the said cases were based on the settlement arrived at between the parties under Section 12 of the Act, whereas, in the present cases there is no settlement on the issue of age of retirement. 38. So far as the issue of delay in raising the dispute by the workmen is concerned, admittedly both the workmen were due to retire and retired in the year 2010 and they within reasonable time approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions but they were relegated to the remedy under the Act which was availed by them and was prosecuted diligently before the LC and, therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a delay on the part of workmen in prosecuting their cause qua age of superannuation. 39. 39. So far as the submission made based on the fact that the order altering the age of superannuation was made on 26/4/2003 and the workman waited till 2010 for questioning the validity of the said order is concerned, the nature of references which have been made by the State Government do not pertain to the validity of the order dated 26/4/2003, the same essentially is regarding the validity of retirement of the workmen on a particular date and as the company relied on the order dated 26/4/2003 for supporting its decision, the same having been found in violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act, the LC ignoring the same held that the workmen could not have been retired at the age of 58 years, as such the issue of delay in questioning the validity of the order dated 26/4/2003 does not arise and consequently it cannot be said that the dispute raised by the workmen suffers from delay and laches so as to question the validity of the awards passed by the LC. 40. The said aspect is besides the point that though the workmen denied any knowledge about the existence of order dated 26/4/2003 and gave affidavit in evidence reiterating the said aspect, hardly any cross examination was made on the said aspect except for confronting them with the Charter of Demands and Memorandum of Settlement which by itself do not indicate existence of order dated 26/4/2003. 41. In view of the above discussion, none of the issues raised by the petitioner HZL has any substance so as to vitiate the awards passed by the LC. 42. Consequently there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.