In the year 1981, the Phosphates Company Limited was incorporated as a joint venture between the Government of India and Rupublic of Nauru with the objective of manufacturing of Di-Ammonium Phosphates. Later on, in the y

The present case is similar to the case of Paradeep Phosphates Limited vs. State Of Orissa & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos. 3997-3998 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.35347-35348 of 2016). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the relationship of the employer and employee is of utmost faith and, as a result, it falls under the ambit of fiduciary relationship. In order to regulate such relationship, legislature came up with legislation i.e., the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(the Act). The purpose of the Act is to protect the interest of employees as they are the weaker sections since time immemorial. In order to safeguard the rights of the employees, certain amendments have been made subsequently in the Statute. In 1956, legislature inserted Section 9A of the Act which makes it obligatory on the part of the employer that he is bound to give advance notice to the employee if he intends to change certain things as envisaged under Section 9A of the Act read with Fourth Schedule. At the first sight of the provision, prima facie, it appears that the employer is bound to give minimum 21 days' notice to the employee if employer intends to change any material terms of service. Section 9A of the Act is a provision in consonance with the Constitutional mandate which assures the protection of principles of natural justice i.e., no one shall be condemned unless heard. Undoubtedly, it is a cardinal principle of law that beneficial laws should be construed liberally. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is one of the welfare legislations which intends to provide and protect the benefits of the employees. Hence, it shall be interpreted in a liberal and broad manner so that maximum benefits could reach to the employees. Any attempt to do strict interpretation would undermine the intention of the legislature. In a catena of cases, this Court has held that the welfare legislation shall be interpreted in a liberal way. No doubt, the enhancement of the superannuation age was temporary in nature in order to achieve certain objectives and also it is not deniable that yet employees would be governed by the Service Rules and the Certified Standing Orders which were not amended. However, if we allow the plea of the appellant Company then it would defeat the object of legislature because legislature could never have intended that employees would be condemned without giving them right of reasonable hearing, naturally, every employee is under the expectation that before reducing his superannuation age, he would be given a proper chance to be heard. Right to work is a vital right of every employee and in our view, it shall not be taken away without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard otherwise it would be an act of violation of the Constitutional mandate. Moreover, the contention of the appellant-Company that the object of enhancement of superannuation age was just to save the industries from huge losses, therefore, it does not violate any statutory right of the employees, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and also it does not give the license to the appellant-Company to act in contravention of law since it is a cannon of law that everyone is expected to act as per the mandate of law. To sum up, we are of the view that at the very moment when the order of enhancement of superannuation of the employees came into force though temporary in nature, it would amount to privilege to employees since it is a special right granted to them. Hence, any unilateral withdrawal of such privilege amounts to contravention of Section 9A of the Act and such act of the employer is bad in the eyes of law. In view of above detailed discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned judgment of the High Court, hence, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Accordingly, these appeals are hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost.