PETITIONER:
TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/09/1986
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1987 AIR 51 1986 SCC (4) 237
JT 1986 405 1986 SCALE (2)391
CITATOR INFO :
R 1987 SC1527 (25)
ACT:
Constitution of India 1950:
Articles 12, 14 & 32-Retirement age-58 years for
management staff and 60 years for clerical staff-Whether
discriminatory.
HEADNOTE:
The age of superannuation of the clerical staff
employed under the Respondent No. 1 is 60 years while in the
case of the management staff the terminal point is 58 years.
The officers of the management staff in their petitions
under Article 32 alleged that the disparity in the age of
retirement between two groups of employees gives rise to
discriminatory treatment. They also claim that in keeping
with the current trend in the commercial field such age
should be fixed at 60.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court,
^
HELD: 1. Classification on the basis of reasonable
differentia is a well known basis. Clerical staff and
officers of the management staff belong to separate
classifications. Therefore, the petitioners, in the fact of
the case, are not entitled to seek support from Article 14
for their claim. [741 F]
2. The claim of the clerical staff arose in an
industrial dispute. The scope of such adjudication is wide
and broad-based. The Tribunal has expansive jurisdiction to
exercise when a reference is made to it. This Court in
appeal against the Award was exercising the same
jurisdiction in that case. It would not be appropriate for
this Court to exercise that Jurisdiction in dealing with an
application under Article 32 of the Constitution. The
officers of the management staff are not workmen. [741 G-H]
3. The petitioners have not brought before the Court
all the mate-
740
rial relevant to the making of a claim as made from which
support could be had. On the other hand, the Respondent No.
1 in its affidavit in opposition has placed various aspects
to justify fixation and continuation of the present age of
retirement. [742 E-F]
4. In keeping with the trend of the times, a claim of
the type as laid in the instant applications may have to be
examined. However, that adjudication will be required to be
made on more cogent and appropriate material than now. If
this Court is moved, it has then to be considered whether an
application under Article 32 is the proper remedy for it.
However, the petitioners are not entitled to their claim in
these applications. [742 F-G]
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 2
SCR 111, followed.
Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(Refining Division) Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. and another, [1984] 1 SCR 251, M/s. British Paints
(India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1966] 2 SCR 523 and G.M.
Talang and others v. Shaw Wallace and Co. & Anr., [1964] 7
SCR 424, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 15466
-67 of 1984 Etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
M.K. Ramamurthi, P. Gaur and Jitendra Sharma for the
Petitioners.
G.B. Pai, O.C. Mathur, Miss Deepa Sabra and Mrs. Meera
Mathur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. All these applications under
Article 32 of the Constitution are by officers called the
Management Staff employed under the Respondent No. 1 and
challenge in all the Writ Petitions is to the age of
superannuation at 58 years. The principal ground of attack
is discrimination between the clerical staff for whom the
age of retirement is 60 years and the management staff in
whose case such terminal point is 58 years. It is also the
claim of the petition
741
ers that in keeping with the current trend in the commercial
field such age should be fixed at 60.
Each of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15466 and
15467 of 1984 and 2745 of 1985 is a recent recruit for the
management staff while each of the petitioners in the
remaining cases was an employee under the Burmah Shell oil
Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited and after
the take over of that Company under the Burmah Shell
(Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976, has become
an officer of respondent No. 1.
In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 2
SCR 111 this Court has held Respondent No. 1 to be “State”
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. There
has, therefore, been no dispute before us that the
petitioners would be entitled to invoke the protection of
Article 14 in case there indeed be any discrimination.
This Court in Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (Refining Division) Bombay v. Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another, [1984] 1 SCR 251
directed the retirement age of the clerical staff of the
Refinery Division of Respondent No. 1 to be fixed at 60
years. Petitioners have contended that the disparity in the
age of retirement between two groups of employees gives rise
to discriminatory treatment. This stand is not tenable for
more than one reason. Clerical staff and officers of the
management staff belong to separate classifications and no
argument is necessary in support of it. Petitioners have not
contended and perhaps could not legitimately contend, that
the two classes of officers stand at par. In the Workmen’s
case itself, this Court did not extend the benefit of
superannuation at the age of 60 to all clerical staff but
limited the same to that category of employees working in
the Refinery Division, Bombay. Classification on the basis
of reasonable differentia is a well-known basis and we are
of the view that the petitioners are not entitled in the
facts of the case to seek support from Article 14 for their
claim.
The claim of the clerical staff arose in an industrial
dispute. The scope of such an adjudication is wide and
broad-based. The Tribunal has expansive jurisdiction to
exercise when a reference is made to it. This court in
appeal against the Award was exercising the same
jurisdiction in that case. We do not think, it would be
appropriate for this Court to exercise that jurisdiction in
dealing with an application under Article 32 of the
Constitution. It must also be remembered that officers of
the management staff are not workmen.
742
It is true that this Court in Workmen of the Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Refining Division) Bombay,
[1984] 1 SCR 251 quoted with approval its earlier
observations in M/s. British Paints (India) Ltd. v. Its
Workmen, [1966] 2 SCR 523 where it was said:
“But time in our opinion has now come considering
the improvement in the standard of health and
increase in longevity in this country during the
last fifty years that the age of retirement should
be fixed at a higher level, and we consider that
generally speaking in the present circumstances
fixing the age of retirement at 60 years would be
fair and proper, unless there are special
circumstances justifying fixation of a lower age
of retirement.”
Again in G.M. Talang and others v. Shaw Wallace and Co. &
Anr., [1964] 7 SCR 424 this Court referred to the Report of
the Norms Committee where it was said:
“After taking into consideration the views of the
earlier Committees and Commissions including those
of the Second Pay Commission the report of which
has been released recently, we feel that the
retirement age for workmen in all industries
should be fixed at 60.”
A distinction in the treatment on the point in issue between
workmen and officers is clearly discernible in judicial
thinking as also expert opinion. Besides, the petitioners
have not brought before the Court all the material relevant
to the making of a claim as made from which support could be
had. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 in its
affidavit in opposition has placed various aspects to
justify fixation and continuation of the present age of
retirement. It may be that some day, in keeping with the
trend of the times, a claim of the type as laid in these
applications may nave to be examined. We, however, hope that
adjudication will be required to be made on more cogent and
appropriate material than now. If this Court is moved, it
has then to be considered whether an application under
Article 32 is the proper remedy for it. We are, however, of
the view that the petitioners are not entitled to their
claim in these applications. The Writ Petitions are
dismissed but without costs.
A.P.J. Petitions dismissed.
743