JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.Somashekar., for petitioner and Sri.Subba Rao., learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri.L.Muralidhar Peshwa., for respondent No.1 have appeared through video conferencing. Smt.K.Shobha., learned HCGP for Respondents 2 and 3 has appeared in person. 2. The facts can be stated quite shortly as under: TTK Healthcare - the petitioner has Certified Standing Orders on 24/7/2013 under the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Clause 15 pertains to retirement of workers at the age of 58 years. The first respondent Union submitted Charter of Demands dtd.:7/11/2016. In this, Clause 20 pertains to retirement demanding enhancement of existing age of 58 years to 60 years. It is stated that there were marathon discussions on the Charter of Demands and ultimately a settlement was signed on 28/4/2018 for the period 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. It is averred that Clauses 12(31), 12(32) and 12(39) of the terms of settlement pertains to Union agreeing not to raise any fresh demands and dropping rest of the demands contained in Charter of Demands dtd.:7/11/2016. Thus, the Union had agreed in the settlement to drop the demand for enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. When matters stood thus, Union - the first respondent by letter dtd.:1/6/2019 requested the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer - the second respondent to amend the Certified Standing Orders to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. TTK Healthcare Limited - the petitioner filed reply dtd.:13/8/2019 and 22/9/2020 that the request of the Union for enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years is not maintainable and may be rejected. It is averred that the Certifying Officer has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in BARAUNI REFINERY 1991 (1) LLJ 46 , but did not follow the same. After hearing the parties, the Certifying Officer passed an order dtd.:15/2/2021 allowing the request of Union and increased/enhanced the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years by amending Clause 15 of the Certified Standing Orders. Aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer, TTK Healthcare Limited - the petitioner filed an Appeal under Sec. 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the Additional Labour Commissioner (IR) and Appellate Authority - the third respondent. The Union filed objections to the appeal on 28/7/2021. Aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer, TTK Healthcare Limited - the petitioner filed an Appeal under Sec. 6 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 before the Additional Labour Commissioner (IR) and Appellate Authority - the third respondent. The Union filed objections to the appeal on 28/7/2021. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Certifying Officer and dismissed the appeal vide order dtd.:18/11/2021. The order passed by the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority have been challenged in the present Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions. Sri.S.N.Murthy, learned Senior counsel primarily contended that the TTK health Care "" the petitioner and the Union - first respondent are bound by the terms of the settlement. The settlement is for a period of three years from 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. The Union agreed not to raise any fresh demands and dropping the rest of the demands contained in Charter of Demands. Hence, the application seeking amendment of Standing Orders is not maintainable. To substantiate the said contention, Sri.S.N.Murthy., learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied on the following decisions: 1. BARAUNI REFINERY PRAGATISHEEL SHRAMIK PARISHAD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED - (1991) 1 SCC 4 . 2. KENNAMETAL INDIA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. KENNAMETAL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS "" W.A.NO.400/2011 dtd.:27/7/2011. 3. ITI LIMITED VS. VENUGOPALAN.N - W.A.NO.6812/2003 dtd.:22/3/2010. 4. GUEST, KEEN, WILLIAMS PR LTD., CALCUTTA VS. P.J.STERLING AND OTHERS - AIR 1959 SC 1279 . 5. RAJU.M.C VS. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA VIDYUTH KHARKHANE LTD. - W.P.NO.34992/1982 dtd.:12/10/1982. 6. VIKRANTH TYRES EMPLOYEES UNION VS. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS IN W.A.NO.375/2021 dtd.:1/4/2021, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 7. MANAGEMENT OF M/S JK TYRE AND INDUSTRIES LTD., VS. VIKRANTH TYRES EMPLOYEES UNION AND ORS. "" SLP NO.13389/2021. 8. M/S. ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS AND ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. M/S. ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS (NTTF) EMPLOYEES UNION and ORS. "" SLP NO.24902/2019. 9. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. VS. DHIRENDRA SUNDAR DAS AND ORS. "" AIR 2019 SC 2331 . 10. M/S. WES COAST PAPER MILLS COMPANY LTD., VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - W.A.NO.2256/2018 dtd.:1/10/2020. Sri.Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel for the Union - first respondent strenuously urged that the settlement period has ended on 31st day of December 2020. 9. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. VS. DHIRENDRA SUNDAR DAS AND ORS. "" AIR 2019 SC 2331 . 10. M/S. WES COAST PAPER MILLS COMPANY LTD., VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA - W.A.NO.2256/2018 dtd.:1/10/2020. Sri.Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel for the Union - first respondent strenuously urged that the settlement period has ended on 31st day of December 2020. The respondent moved an application for amendment of Standing Orders. The Authority concerned i.e., the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority passed the orders after the completion of the period of settlement. Therefore, he submitted that the orders passed by the Authorities are just and proper. To substantiate the said contentions, learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. ROHTAK AND HISSAR DISTRICT ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS - AIR 1966 SC 1471 . 2. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD., VS. THE WORKMEN AND ANOTHER - AIR 1961 SC 1175 . 3. MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) and APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 AND OTHERS - W.A.NO.2771/2019. 4. M/S.BRITISH PAINTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITS WORKMEN - AIR 1966 SC 732 . 5. THE U.P. STATE ELECTRIC BOARD AND ANOTHER VS. HARI SHANKAR JAIN AND OTHERS - 1978 (4) SCC 16 . 6. M/S. ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS AND ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD., VS. M/S. ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION and ORS. "" W.A.NO.1/2019 dtd.:17/7/2019. 7. MANAGEMENT OF MANIPAL POWER PRESS VS. SADANANDA DEVADIGA AND OTHERS - SCC 2004 KAR 2096. 4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the parties and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The sole question to be answered is whether amendment/modification of the Certified Standing Order is justified in law? The facts have been sufficiently stated. This is a simple case of amendment of Standing Orders. Before, I answer the point let me quickly glance through the aims and objectives of The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is a special enactment. It is a special piece of Legislation. The first objective of the Act is to provide Regular Standing Orders for factories, workers and the main professional or working relationship. The second aim is to ensure that all employees recognize their employment terms and conditions they are expected to follow or adhere to. It is a special piece of Legislation. The first objective of the Act is to provide Regular Standing Orders for factories, workers and the main professional or working relationship. The second aim is to ensure that all employees recognize their employment terms and conditions they are expected to follow or adhere to. This is to help minimize the exploitation of workers against their will and knowledge. The third objective supports the promotion of industrial peace and harmony by supporting fair industrial practices. Suffice it to note that the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946) provides for a mechanism for amendment of the Standing Orders. Sec. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Act of 1946 reads as under: "3. Submission of draft standing orders. - (1) Within six months from the date on which this Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment, the employer shall submit to the Certifying Officer five copies of the draft standing orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. (2) Provision shall be made in such draft 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 is practicable, in conformity with such model. (3) The draft standing orders submitted under this Sec. shall be accompanied by a statement giving prescribed particulars of the workmen employed in the industrial establishment including the name of the trade union, if any, to which they belong. (4) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, a group of employers in similar industrial establishments may submit a joint draft of standing orders under this Sec. . 4. Conditions for certification of standing orders. - Standing orders shall be certifiable under this Act 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 this Act; and it [ shall be the function] of the Certifying Officer or appellate authority to adjudicate upon the fairness or reasonableness of the provisions of any standing orders. 5. 5. Certification of standing orders."" (1) On receipt of the draft under Sec. 3, the Certifying Officer shall 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 prescribed form requiring objections, if any, which the workmen may desire to make to the draft standing orders to be submitted to him within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. (2) After giving the employer and the trade union or such other representatives of the workmen as may be prescribed an opportunity of being heard, the Certifying Officer shall decide whether or not any modification of or addition to the draft submitted by the employer is necessary to render the draft standing orders certifiable under this Act, and shall make an order in writing accordingly. (3) The Certifying Officer shall thereupon certify the draft standing orders, after making any modifications therein which his order under sub-sec. (2) may require, and shall within seven days thereafter send copies of the certified standing orders authenticated in the prescribed manner and of his order under sub-sec. (2) to the employer and to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen 6. Appeals. -(1) Any employer, workman, trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer under sub- Sec. (2) of Sec. 5 may, within thirty days from the date on which copies are sent under sub-sec. (3) of that Sec., appeal to the appellate authority, and the appellate authority, whose decision shall be final, shall by order in writing confirm the standing orders either in the form certified by the Certifying Officer or after amending the said standing orders by making such modifications thereof or additions thereto as it thinks necessary to render the standing orders certifiable under this Act. (2) The appellate authority shall, within seven days of its order under sub- Sec. (1), send copies thereof of the Certifying Officer, to the employer and to the trade union or other prescribed representatives of the workmen, accompanied, unless it has confirmed without amendment the standing orders as certified by the Certifying Officer, by copies of the standing orders as certified by it and authenticated in the prescribed manner." Sec. 10.- Duration and modification of standing orders.- (1) Standing orders finally certified under this Act 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 modifications thereof came into operation. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (1), an employer or workman or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen 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. (3) The foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply in respect of an application under sub-sec. (2) as they apply to the certification of the first standing orders. (4) Nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) shall apply to an industrial establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government is the Government of the State of Gujarat or the Government of the State of Maharashtra." As is well known that The Standing Orders Act was enacted to define with sufficient precision the conditions of employment for workers employed in Industrial establishments and to make the same known to them. The object of the Act was to have uniform 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. The object of the Act was to have uniform 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 Sec. 3 to submit to the Certifying Officer draft Standing Orders proposed by him for adoption in his industrial establishment. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 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. Sec. 4 provides 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 or 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, Sec. 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 a trade union, to the workmen in such manner as may be prescribed, together with a notice in the prescribed 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 modifications, 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 seven days. Sec. 6 provides for an appeal against the order of the Certifying Officer. He is then expected to certify the draft Standing Orders with modifications, 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 seven days. Sec. 6 provides for an appeal against the order of the Certifying Officer. The Appellate Authority has to communicate its decision to the Certifying Officer, to the employer and the trade union or other prescribed representative of the workmen within seven days from the date of its order. Under Sec. 10 (2), it is open to an employer or workmen or a trade union or other representative body of the workmen to have the Standing Orders modified by filing an application for modification of the Standing Orders and when such an application is filed for modification, it will have to be dealt with in the same manner as if an application is made for certification of the Standing Orders. As is well known that Sec. 10 (2) of the Act gives ample power to the Certifying Officer to modify the Standing Orders. In the present case, the Standing Orders duly certified as above for TTK Healthcare on 24/7/2013. It is not in dispute that the Management entered into a settlement with the Union on 28/4/2018 for a period of three years from 1/1/2017 to 31/12/2020. The notice of termination is dtd. 3/11/2020. Suffice it to note that the Government of Karnataka vide Notification No.LD 72 LET 2013, Bengaluru, dtd.:23/3/2017 amended Model Standing Orders by increasing the age of retirement on superannuation from 58 years to 60 years for both workmen and the Clerical and other Ministerial Staff, for Industrial establishments in the State of Karnataka, as per the provisions under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder. It is relevant to note that the Rules have been notified in the Gazette on 28/3/2017. The Union submitted a letter dtd.:1/6/2019 to the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer seeking amendment of the Standing Order. The Certifying Officer after hearing the parties amended the Standing Orders thereby enhanced the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years vide order dtd.:15/2/2021. Aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer, the Management preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Authority confirmed the order of the Certifying Officer on 18/11/2021. The Certifying Officer after hearing the parties amended the Standing Orders thereby enhanced the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years vide order dtd.:15/2/2021. Aggrieved by the order of the Certifying Officer, the Management preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Authority confirmed the order of the Certifying Officer on 18/11/2021. The TTK Health Care - the petitioner has exhaustively relied upon BARAUNI REFINERY case reported in AIR 1990 SC 1801 before the Authorities. Even before this Court also the petitioner placed much reliance on the said decision to contend that BARAUNI'S case clearly stipulates that during the currency of period of settlement, an application for modification of the Standing Orders is not maintainable; and any demand which will have financial liability on the company cannot be raised and particularly regarding the age of retirement which involves financial burden on the company. Learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 6, 9 and 10 of the decision. By way of answer, Sri.Subba Rao, learned Senior counsel contended that in BARAUNI's case, the Apex Court has held the Certifying Officer under the Standing Orders Act has the jurisdiction to entertain the application for amendment of a Standing Order. Counsel also submitted that even in BARAUNI's case, the Regional Labour Commissioner passed the order enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. The order is made during the currency of the period of settlement. Hence, it was argued that the contention with regard to maintainability of the application is unsustainable in law. I have considered the rival contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the decision with utmost care. At paragraph 6 in BARAUNI's case, the Apex Court has referred to the points formulated by the High Court. The first point relates to the contention whether the Certifying Officer has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment of a Standing Order. Suffice it to notice that the High Court had answered the first point in the affirmative in favor of the workmen and the Apex court has confirmed the finding on the question of jurisdiction to entertain an application during the currency of the period of settlement. Suffice it to notice that the High Court had answered the first point in the affirmative in favor of the workmen and the Apex court has confirmed the finding on the question of jurisdiction to entertain an application during the currency of the period of settlement. In other words, in BARAUNI's case, the Apex Court has held that the application is maintainable and the Certifying officer has the jurisdiction to entertain the application during the currency of the period of settlement. I may venture to notice that in BARAUNI's case, there is no reference to the date of the application. Nevertheless, as could be seen from the narration of dates, admittedly, the period settlement was from 1/5/1982 to 30/4/1986. The Regional Labour Commissioner passed order enhancing the age of superannuation on 11 th of October 1984 that means obviously the application would have been filed during the currency of the period of settlement. The Apex Court in extenso referred to the relevant provisions of the Act and concluded that the Certifying Officer has the jurisdiction to entertain an application during the currency of the period of settlement. The issue is no longer res-integra. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the application is not maintainable must necessarily fail. It is further noticed that the Division Bench of this Court in ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS AND ENGINEERING INDIA LTD VS ADITYA AUTO PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS in W.A.No.01/2019 has held that the order passed by the Authorities after the expiry of the terms of the settlement is in accordance with the law. The order of Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court has dismiss the petition. Even in the present case also the Authorities have passed the orders after the expiry of the period of settlement. It is needless to say that the workmen have filed an application for amendment under the provisions of the Statute and the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority in exercise of statutory power passed the order. It is perhaps well to remember that the orders are made after the expiry of the period of settlement. Therefore, the contention that the orders are made during the subsistence of the settlement is liable to be rejected. It is perhaps well to remember that the orders are made after the expiry of the period of settlement. Therefore, the contention that the orders are made during the subsistence of the settlement is liable to be rejected. It is needless to observe that the Certified Standing Orders made in the State of Karnataka provide for enhancement of age of retirement on superannuation from 58 to 60 years. In my considered opinion, the Certifying Officer was certainly justified in allowing the application submitted by the Union - first respondent. The Appellate Authority is also justified in affirming the order passed by the Certifying Officer. To conclude, I can only say this much that there is no infirmity in the orders. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Counsel for petitioner and respondent have cited a number of cases, but I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions.