JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The present special appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner-Hindustan Zinc Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant/management') against the order dated 03.04.2019 of a learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 202/2019 (Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Udaipur & Anr.). The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and upheld the award dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur in Case No. 01/2011 (L.C.R.). 2. The present controversy pertains to the superannuation age of the respondent-workman engaged with the present appellant/management. 3. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellant/management and the registered trade unions entered into various Long Term Settlements, in relation to various demands, including the issues pertaining to service conditions of the workmen. 4. As per the pleaded case of the appellant/management, Long Term Settlement-VI entered into between it and the workers' union expired on 30.06.1997. In light of the changed circumstances, the registered trade unions, in order to review the service conditions and other ancillary demands, prepared a fresh Charter of Demand dated 26.06.1997, wherein a specific demand was made to increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. In pursuance of the said Charter of Demand, a Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.01.2001 was entered into between the appellant/writ petitioner and the workers' federation, but the same did not include or accede to the demand of raising the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. 5. It is borne out from the record that in the meanwhile, in pursuance of the order dated 19.05.1998 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries, the age of superannuation of the employees of the appellant was increased from 58 years to 60 years, and an order to that effect was also passed by the appellant/management. 6. The record of the case further reveals that an order dated 20.05.1998 was passed amending the standing orders/rules etc., and the relevant age of superannuation of the employees below the Board level became 60 years. 7. 6. The record of the case further reveals that an order dated 20.05.1998 was passed amending the standing orders/rules etc., and the relevant age of superannuation of the employees below the Board level became 60 years. 7. The record of the case also shows that Clause 32 of the Standing Order makes a clear mention that if the provisions of any law or amendment thereof have the effect of adding, amending, modifying or creating new contractual obligations between the parties in respect of any of the matter provided therein, such orders will be deemed to have been modified, altered and amended to the corresponding extent. 8. After disinvestment of the appellant in the year 2002 in terms of the policy of the Central Government, in the 261st Meeting of its Board of Directors (held on 25.10.2002), a decision was taken to reduce the age of superannuation of its employees/workmen from 60 years to 58 years, thus reverting back to the original model Standing Orders of Rajasthan, which prescribed 58 years as the age of superannuation. 9. The appellant/management urges that in pursuance of its aforementioned meeting of the Board of Directors, an Organizational Advice to the same effect was issued on 26.04.2003, which was affixed on the notice board for perusal and information of all concerned, including the respective union of the present respondent-workman. 10. Thereafter, yet another Long Term Settlement-VII was entered into between the parties, expired on 30.06.2007, whereupon the registered trade union submitted a fresh Charter of Demand dated 12.03.2007, raising the specific demand of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 11. As claimed by the appellant/writ petitioners, the aforementioned settlements had the implied consent of the workmen concerned through their respective union. 12. As the pleaded facts would further reveal, the Long Term Settlements were preceded by Charter of Demand on some issues, but the demand of the registered trade unions to increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was denied under the Memorandum of Settlement, and the subsequent Long Term Settlement as well as Memorandum of Settlement were never challenged by the workmen concerned or objected during any legal proceeding. 13. 13. The workmen concerned challenged the reduction in the age of their superannuation from 60 years to 58 years by filing writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 8895/2010 and 513/2011 before this Court, which were decided on 10.02.2011, whereby they were relegated to the Labour Court, to avail the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). The disputes were referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court. During its pendency, the respondent-workmen stood retired from the post of Assistant Foreman. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/management submitted that in its written submission before the court, the effect and operation of the Long Term Settlement/Memorandum of Settlement were not discussed at all, and once the demand to increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was denied and reduction in the superannuation age has been given effect to, then it was not open to the respondent-workman to come and raise the issue of individual superannuation age. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/management also submitted that there was a standard practice by the registered trade unions of issuing their Charter of Demand listing common demands relating to service and other ancillary conditions of the employees/workmen, so that a settlement may be arrived at between both the parties. It was submitted that the Long Term Settlement-VI expired on 30.06.1997, and the registered trade unions, to review the service conditions, prepared a fresh Charter of Demand, wherein a specific demand of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was raised. Further to the Charter of Demand, a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into between the parties in the year 2001, whereby changes in the conditions of service were either accepted or modified, but the demand to increase the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years was not acceded to by the appellant/writ petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant/management also submitted that a fresh Charter of Demand was further prepared in the year 2007, which again included the demand to raise the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years, which resulted in Memorandum of Settlement between the appellant/writ petitioner and the trade unions in the year 2009 i.e. on 13.11.2009, but the age of superannuation was not enhanced from 58 years to 60 years. 17. 17. Learned counsel for the management sought to demonstrate from the record that the Charter of Demand issued by the registered trade unions, contained a demand for increasing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years, but the subsequent Long Term Memorandum of Settlement did not accede to the said demand, and the concluded Long Term Settlement as well as Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties were in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947 and were an outcome of the conciliation proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Udaipur, and which by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Act of 1947 had a binding effect on the management as well as the workers, including the claimant (present respondent-workman). 18. Counsel for the appellant/management argued that the learned courts adjudicating the issue failed to consider the Charter of Demand, and thereafter, the Long Term Settlement, which contained various concessions and service related benefits, granted to the employees/workmen, and were enjoyed by them, including the present respondent-workman as well. According to counsel, the increments in the allowances relating to paid leave, uniform allowance etc. were enjoyed by the workmen, which were benefits accruing out of the Memorandum of Settlement, and thus, the respondent-workman was estopped from challenging the same before the competent court. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in distinction to the facts of the case of Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. [ (2018) 6 SCC 195 ] relied upon by the Labour court while passing the award, stating that the employer-appellant had issued notice, which fulfilled the requirement of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947, as the notice was given on 26.04.2003, whereby the new superannuation age of 58 years was to take effect from 31.05.2003, which was more than 21 days' notice. 20. Learned counsel urged that the said notice was not disputed anywhere on record, and the workmen concerned, including the present respondent-workman, were aware that all the unions had demanded for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years in the years 2007, 2009 and 2012, which was in fact reduced by the notice of 2003 and was in accordance with the Long Term Memorandum of Settlement of 2007. 21. Learned counsel submitted that Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 21. Learned counsel submitted that Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) was based on a fact-situation where the concerned employer had unilaterally reduced/rolled back the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years. The age of retirement was considered to be a privilege and the party employer therein was found to be not complying with the fundamentals of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947, which was necessary for altering and reducing the age of superannuation, which is not there in the present case. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant further demonstrated from the record that in the present case, the office order dated 26.04.2003 was affixed on the notice board as a matter of practice, and moreover, the Long Term Settlement, having binding effect on both the parties, differentiated the present from Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra). 23. Learned counsel for the appellant/management submitted that by order dated 26.04.2003, all stake holders were informed of change in the retirement age, and thus, it cannot be said that it had not complied with the relevant provisions of the Act of 1947, and further that the Long Term Settlement itself reflected this position. Thus, it could not be a case where no opportunity of hearing has been given by the appellant/writ petitioner before giving effect to such reduction in the age of superannuation. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant/management further reiterated that the office order dated 26.04.2003 was affixed on the notice board, and it clearly indicated that it was to be effective from 31.05.2003 after one month, which satisfies the precondition of giving notice under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. As per learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the Long Term Memorandum of Settlement of 2007, which was also made in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947 reiterated the demand of raising the superannuation age, clearly reflects that all the unions and all the workmen had complete notice of the fact that the superannuation age stood reduced from 60 years to 58 years in 2003. 25. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner also mentioned that as per the terms of settlement, there was a clear agreement between the workmen concerned, including the present respondent-workman and the employer regarding dropping the demands which have not been expressly agreed to in terms of the settlement, whereas the increase of superannuation age was a continuing demand and was never given up. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner further drew the attention of this Court towards the fact that after the order dated 26.04.2003 was given effect to, 56 workmen, who were superannuated at the age of 58 years, and out of these 56 workmen superannuated, 11 were from the same mechanical section, in which the present respondent-workman was discharging his duties, and thus, the learned courts adjudicating the issue ought to have appreciated that all the workmen concerned, including the present respondent/workman, were well aware of the fact that the superannuation age had been reduced, and thus, could not have belatedly challenged the same. 27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/workman submitted that the age of superannuation of the employees of the appellant was increased from 58 years to 60 years pursuant to the order dated 19.05.1998 of the Government of India, and a consequential order was issued by the management. He further contended that vide order dated 20.05.1998, the standing orders/rules etc. were amended and the relevant age of retirement of the employees below the Board level became 60 years. It was also argued by the workman that Clause 32 of the Standing Order categorically mentioned that if the provisions of any law or amendment thereof have the effect of adding, amending, modifying or creating new contractual obligation on the parties in respect of any of the matter provided therein, the orders will be deemed to have been modified, altered and amended to the corresponding extent. 28. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the decision of the Board of Directors of the appellant/writ petitioner taken, whereupon the organizational advice was issued on 26.04.2003 itself, was never communicated to the workmen. He argued that the said advice or order was never published or communicated to the present respondent, and thus, there was a complete violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. 29. He argued that the said advice or order was never published or communicated to the present respondent, and thus, there was a complete violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. 29. The respondent/workman further submitted that the Charter of Demand dated 26.06.1997 between the appellant/writ petitioner and the workers' union and federations had a specific demand regarding increasing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years, which was fulfilled by the Government of India by its decision dated 19.05.1998. 30. Counsel for the workman also submitted that the demand for increase in the age of superannuation therefore, was not made in the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.01.2001, and thus, the settlement in question, which did not carry the said demand, expired on 30.06.2007, and accordingly, a fresh Charter of Demand was issued on 12.03.2007. He relied on the Settlement which had prevailed earlier, to highlight that it contained a condition that demands not acceded were dropped and submitted that the absence of similar condition in the 2007 settlement (regarding retirement) meant that the dispute was alive. 31. Counsel for the workman, however, was not able to satisfy this Court as to the fresh Charter of Demand submitted for increasing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years, which was inserted on 26.04.2003 and was taken up by the unions at all times, particularly, in the years 2007 and 2009. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman further submitted that the order passed by the adjudicating courts was based on the documents and after appreciating evidence on record and there was a clear non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. 33. Counsel for the workman further submitted that the order dated 19.05.1998 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Industries and followed by the appellant/writ petitioner, was binding on it, and once all the standing orders and rules were amended in that light, then a new contractual obligation was created between the parties and could not have been changed one sided by the appellant/writ petitioner. 34. 34. Counsel for the workman further submitted that Section 9-A of the Act of 1947 provides for notice of change and it mandates that no employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in Fourth Schedule, shall effect it, without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of change proposed to be effected; or within 21 days of giving such notice. He submitted that there was no notice given under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947, which was mandatory in nature, and thus, the decision to reduce the superannuation age on 26.04.2003 was not applicable. Counsel further submitted that Rule 34 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 alongwith Form-E also casts an obligation upon the employer regarding giving of notice upon any change being made. He submitted that no notice of change in the age of superannuation was ever published or communicated to the respondent-workman, and thus, there was violation of the provisions of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947 and Rule 34 of the Rules of 1957. 35. Learned counsel for the workman relied upon Paradeep Phosphates Limited (supra), which was relied upon by the labour court while passing the award, and submitted that in that judgment, the same controversy of increasing the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years was dealt with. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman further submitted that in that case, the company had rolled back the retirement age without giving any notice under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947, and the Supreme Court, held that such notice was mandatory, because the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a beneficial legislation meant to safeguard the rights of the employees, containing provisions, and without giving any notice, if the employer changes the service conditions including the superannuation age, then, such is contrary to law. 36. Learned counsel for the respondent/workman also submitted that in the Charter of Demand dated 26.06.1997, the workers' unions and federations had specifically demanded enhancement in the superannuation age from 58 years to 60 years, but when the demand was met in May, 1998 pursuant to the order passed by the Government of India, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.01.2001 excluded the demand for increasing the age of superannuation. He argued that such settlement expired on 30.06.2007 and a fresh Charter of Demand dated 12.03.2007 was submitted, which of course included the demand for raising the superannuation age. 37. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the learned courts adjudicating the issue have failed to appreciate that the office order for rolling back the superannuation age from 60 years to 58 years was passed on 26.04.2003 in respect of the employees of the appellant/writ petitioner below the Board level, and thus, the decision taken in 2003 could not have been challenged after 31.08.2010 and 30.09.2010, when the respondent/workman, after attaining the age of 58 years, stood superannuated. 38. This Court is conscious of the fact that the essential dispute is based on the right of the age of superannuation, which is a common right accruing to the same class of workmen and ordinarily should not be different for the workmen serving in the same conditions. 39. This Court finds that the labour court and the learned Single Judge of this Court did not consider the fact that the organizational advice itself was issued on 26.04.2003, as confirmed by a meeting of the Board of Directors of the appellant/writ petitioner. Further the organizational advice was fixed on the notice board on 26.04.2003 in all establishments and branches and it had to come into effect from 31.5.2003, which was more than 21 days, to be easily taken as a notice under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. The difference between the organizational advice issued on 26.4.2003 and its coming into effect from 31.05.2003 tantamounts to substantial compliance of Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. 40. This Court also takes note of the fact that the standing orders and the model standing orders of Rajasthan prescribes 58 years as the age of superannuation. 41. The Long Term Settlements of 2001 and 2007 clearly indicated that a consensus has been arrived at between the workmen and the employer, whereby the demands agreed upon and acceded, were incorporated as part of the settlement. 41. The Long Term Settlements of 2001 and 2007 clearly indicated that a consensus has been arrived at between the workmen and the employer, whereby the demands agreed upon and acceded, were incorporated as part of the settlement. The learned courts adjudicating the issue ought to have appreciated that the Long Term Settlement was part of the record and since the demand, raised by the registered trade unions, to increase their retirement age from 58 years 60 years, was not agreed to under the Memorandum of Settlement and Long Term Settlement, therefore, its validity could have been challenged, but it was never objected or challenged by the respondent/workman during the proceedings. More crucially, the charter of demands (for increase of age of retirement) was made on behalf of all workmen - by the Union, of which the respondents were members. This was the clearest acknowledgment that the existing age of retirement - then, in 2007 was 58. Therefore the workmen could not have claimed ignorance of the change made w.e.f. 31.05.2003. 42. This Court also finds that the practice of the registered trade unions by way of Charter of Demand mentioning their common demands relating to service and other ancillary conditions of the employees was submitted to the management of the appellant/writ petitioner and a settlement was accordingly arrived between the parties. Further the basic Long Term Settlement of 1997 carried the demand of reviewing the service conditions whereupon specific demand of increasing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years was made. A fresh Charter of Demand, which was thereafter submitted in the year 2007 also included the demand to raise the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. The Charter of Demand and the Long Term Settlement as well as Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the parties in 2007, were made in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947, after the conciliation proceedings were held before the Joint Labour Commissioner, Udaipur, and consequently, by virtue of Section 18(3) of the Act of 1947, the settlement had a binding effect not only on the management but also on all workers of the establishment, including the present respondent/workman. Thus, the non-acceptance of the demand for enhancement of retirement age, and a Settlement in 2007 meant that all workmen were aware of the change in the age of retirement made earlier in 2003. 43. Thus, the non-acceptance of the demand for enhancement of retirement age, and a Settlement in 2007 meant that all workmen were aware of the change in the age of retirement made earlier in 2003. 43. This Court also takes note of the fact that the respondent claimant enjoyed the benefits arising out of the 2007 Long Term Settlement, and thus, cannot be permitted to challenge the issue of superannuation. 44. Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) does not apply in the present case as in that case, the mandatory notice under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947 was not given, whereas in the present case, the organizational advice issued on 26.04.2003 was affixed on the notice board to be given effect to on 31.05.2003 and the same was never challenged by the present respondent/workman or any other workman concerned. The Long Term Settlement had a binding effect unlike in the case of Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra), and the resolution of the 261st meeting of the Board of Directors of the appellant/management rolled back the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years, which was made on 26.04.2003 to come into effect after 30 days. The 261st Company's Board meeting held on 25.10.2002 had already resolved to roll back the age of superannuation from 60 years to 58 years, but the same was done after adopting due process of law. The Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (supra) is thus, distinguishable on such grounds. 45. The organizational advice and the office order, which were issued on 26.04.2003 and were affixed on the notice board and given effect to from 31.05.2003 after lapse of more than one month, satisfies the requirement of notice under Section 9-A of the Act of 1947. 46. This Court is of the opinion that for total understanding of the case, Section 9-A of the Act of 1947 has to be read with Section 12(3), which makes it clear that the legislative intent was to settle the agreements/settlements affecting the parties, while recording their participation, and once such consensus was arrived at between the workmen and the employer, there was no need of giving any personal notice, as the superannuation was general incidence of service common to all workmen in a class. 47. 47. The age of superannuation of the respondent-workman was thus strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1947, in which, after proper conciliation proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner between the present appellant/writ petitioner and the registered trade unions representing the respondent/workman as well, the binding settlement was arrived at and the benefits and facilities arising therefrom, were accordingly availed by the respondent-workman. 48. Apparently, it is clear that the respondent/workman had the complete knowledge that the superannuation age had been changed in the year 2003 itself and the courts proceeding on the factual premise that the respondent/workman came to know about reduction in the superannuation age only in the year 2010 is incorrect on the face of the record. It is a matter of record that employees/workmen, who superannuated after 26.04.2003 at the age of 58 years, were 56 in number before superannuation of the respondent/workman, of which, 11 were from the section to which the respondent-workman belonged. 49. The issue of delay in questioning the correctness of the order dated 26.04.2003 is substantial, and even for drawing conclusion on such an issue, this Court finds that the registered trade unions, who conducted the settlements regarding service conditions with management of the appellant/writ petitioner, had clearly arrived at a consensual Memorandum of Settlement, whereby the age of superannuation was kept at 58 years, and thus, the same was implemented after 26.04.2003 uniformly across the board. It has further, been held by several judgments of the Supreme Court (Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavan Kutty 2000 (2) SCC 455 ; Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. 2007 (9) SCC 109 ) that if a workman does not approach and seek a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, within reasonable time, he is precluded from agitating stale claims. In this case, the workman sought to raise a dispute pertaining to the employer's action, of 2003, 7 years later. His dispute was thus barred by laches as well. 50. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present special appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside; the award dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned labour court is quashed and set aside. All applications are disposed of.