Dear Sir,
I would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring that certified standing order provisions align with the framework outlined in the Model Standing Orders (MSO). Any deviation or exceeding of the provisions of the MSO by the certifying authority renders such actions null and void. This issue was observed in the case of "Geep Industrial Syndicate vs. Geep Industrial Syndicate (1999) ILR 1999 KAR Equivalent citations -3258, 1999 (6) KarLJ 521, (1999) IILLJ 1197 Kant," which I encourage you to review.
Both employees and employers have the freedom to include terms and conditions of service and mutually agree upon them. However, these terms must be fair, just, and within the framework of the law of the land. It is worth noting the "Federal Mogul Goetz India Pvt Ltd., Vs ALC" case, where it was held that settlements between parties can be disregarded in exceptional circumstances if they are demonstrably unjust, unfair, and contrary to the spirit and basic principles of the agreement.
Furthermore, way back in the year 1959 itself, in the case of "Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd vs. P. J. Sterling and Others (1959)," the Supreme Court highlighted various factors to consider when determining a retirement age. These factors include the nature of assigned work, wage structure, retirement benefits, amenities provided, climate conditions, and prevailing practices in comparable industries within the same region.
Therefore, it is not surprising that most private industries have chosen 58 years as the retirement age, which is also the base age mentioned in the MSO. Otherwise, they could potentially take undue advantage of the situation by setting an earlier retirement age, such as 40 years, and asking employees to sign and acknowledge it, only to send them away when they reach the age of 40.