IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22508 of 2007(D)
1. V.UTHAMAN, FINANCE MANAGER,
... Petitioner
2. S.D.PRASANNAKUMARAN NAIR,
3. A.NAZIMUDIN, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
4. S.RAJAN, SECTION OFFICER,
5. M.BALAKRISHNAN, ASST.ENGINEER,
6. B.ARUMUGHAN PILLAI,
7. G.RAMESH MOHAN, ASST.PLANT MANAGER,
8. A.CONSON GOMEZ, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
9. N.J.MOHANACHANDRAN, ASST.MANAGER (LAB)
10. K.K.SASEENDRAN, ASST.MANAGER,
11. A.K.MADHUSOODANAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
12. VARGHESE VARGHESE, ASST.ENGINEER
13. P.RANGAN ASARI,
14. A.SASIKUMARAN PILLAI, SECTION OFFICER,
15. V.A.KURIAN, (CHEMIST),
16. P.G.RAJMOHAN, CHEMIST,
17. ISSAC PHILIP, CHIEF PRODUCTION MANAGER,
18. D.KARTHIKEYAN, ASST.ENGINEER (MECH)
19. J.RAJENDRAN, MANAGER,
20. G.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI,
21. V.L.JOSE, MANAGER (TECHNICAL),
22. P.E.VELAPPAN, FOREMAN,
23. G.SATHEESH BABU,
Vs
1. THE TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCTS LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.)SC,TRAV.TITANIUM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). Nos.22508/2007-D, 15922/2008-U,
35223/2008-R & 3585/2009-B
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
All these writ petitions concern a common question
regarding the retirement age of managerial staff of the
Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the
service organisations as well as individuals aggrieved by
the fixing of retirement age at 58 years.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the age of
superannuation at the time of entry in service of all these
personnel was 60 years and it was remaining as such. As
far as the workers category is concerned, it was 58 years
and with regard to other staff members it was 60 years.
4. Heard Shri N.Nandakumara Menon and Shri.Kurian
George Kannanthanam learned Senior Counsel and learned
counsel Shri Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer appearing for the
petitioners and, Shri K.Anand learned counsel and
Smt.N.Sudha Devi learned Government Pleader for respondents.
5. The decision of the Board of Directors is
reflected in Ext.P8 Minutes produced in W.P.(C).
No.15922/2008. It is contended that the reasons stated in
support of the decision are clearly wrong and have no nexus
with the ground realities. Mainly, the reason shown by the
W.P.(C). Nos.22508/2007, 15922/2008,
35223/2008 & 3585/2009
-:2:-
Management for recommending the bringing down of the
retirement age to 58 years is the poor financial condition
of the Company. It is pointed out that in similar
circumstances, the management attempted to bring down the
retirement age of staff members which was under challenge
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) who by
Ext.P10 order interfered with the same. It is argued that
mainly the reason stated therein also was the financial
position of the Company. It is therefore, submitted that
the said reason is clearly taken as the ruse and without
any legal support and, therefore, cannot be sustained. It
is further pointed out that even if it is a policy decision
of the Management, the policy has to be a reasonable one
and cannot be an arbitrary one.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also
submitted that even after the introduction of the policy,
attempts have been made to extend the service of certain
persons by adopting a pick and choose policy and it is also
alleged that after allowing persons to retire at the age of
58, indiscriminatory appointments have been made that too
by resorting to backdoor method and, instances have been
pointed out by filing affidavits in these cases. The
learned counsel for the Management submitted that these
allegations are not correct and it was only a policy
W.P.(C). Nos.22508/2007, 15922/2008,
35223/2008 & 3585/2009
-:3:-
decision taken by the Management to fix the age of
retirement at 58 years. The issues will have to be
addressed after considering various aspects pointed out by
both sides, and since it is a public sector undertaking, it
is only proper that the Government takes a decision after
hearing all the parties. Ext.P11 produced in W.P.(C).
No.3585/2009 is one of the representations filed before the
Government by the Association. The petitioners in the
other writ petitions may collectively or individually file
appropriate representations before the Government and the
Government will take a decision in the matter after hearing
the representatives of the Association and the Management
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
the representations. It is made clear that I have not
expressed anything on the merits of the matter. The
petitioners will be free to file fresh representations
along with a copy of this Judgment within three weeks from
today. The writ petition are disposed of as above. No
costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms