9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated and has been acted upon. The decision of rolling back with regard to retirement age has been taken pursuant to an exemption granted by the Central Government in terms of subsequent notification dated 21-8-1998. 2. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that this decision is wholly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory in nature. The Central Government has taken a decision allowing all the Government of India undertakings and all Central Government organizations to fix the retirement age of the employees at 60 years from 58 years. This is policy decision of Government of India. 3. He contends subsequent Memorandum dated 21-8-1998 is only an enabling provision for seeking exemption from operation of the earlier decision cannot be public policy of any kind. The said memorandum suffers from infirmities in absence of any guidelines and/or criteria and/or norms laid down by the Government of India under which such exemption can be granted. So this right of having exemption ultra vires articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of his submission he relies on the following decisions of the Supreme Court rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 10, 17 and 37 submits that initially this corporation had to take a decision in view of the direction given by the Central Government. Under the law the respondent-corporation has no option but to carry out the direction given by the Central Government. So, it ( sic ) most reluctantly previously decided and accepted the aforesaid direction of the Central Government as regard fixation of retirement age at 60 years from 58 years of the employees below the beard ( sic ) level. Subsequently the Central Government by and under Memo dated 21-8-1998 has given option to those public sector undertakings who do not want to raise this retirement age may apply for exemption. This direction providing for exemption has not been challenged. The respondent-corporation having felt its necessity duly applied for exemption in view of the fact that the respondent-corporation is gradually losing its business and the ratio of revenue and profit is gradually decreasing. In order to overcome the financial problem and maintain competitive business against other operators in the field such decision is necessary. Moreover, the policy of the Government adopted in June 1997, of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is an indicative factor that the decision taken by the respondent-corporation is reasonable and justified. Mr. Gupta while citing a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR 1981 SC 2163 submits, in that case a larger section of the workmen did not raise any dispute with regard to bipartite settlement and it was held that settlement was reasonable and it is an indicative of the fairness and reasonableness of refixing of retirement age and it is also justified in public interest. Mr. Gupta submits that the decision taken by the corporation and subsequently approved by the Government of rolling back the retirement age had been taken in the public interest in order to implement the Kelkar Committee report aiming at to keep this business afloat by maintaining a healthy and sound revenue profit ratio. At present it appears that earning of revenue so also the profit over the years have gone down steadily because of the advent of a number of domestic private operators in the field. When such decision having been taken for overriding public interest vis-a-vis commercial interest of the corporation, limited interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is apart Mr. Roy has adopted the argument of Mr. Gupta. 11. Having heard the learned counsel of the parties and considering the materials placed, it appears to me the challenge in substance in this matter is against the Resolution of the 50th Board Meeting of the respondent corporation circulated by the reference being No. GS-I/IAL/(50)/99 dated 6-1-2000 and the reference being No. DCA/99 dated 20-12-1999 being Annexure L to the petition, the approval thereof has, however, subsequently been accorded by the Central Government by memorandum dated 16-2-2000. 12. By the aforesaid impugned resolution the respondent corporation has taken a decision to roll back retirement age on extension of the employees from 60 years to 58 years which was originally prevailing. In the petition, however, the grounds of attacks are that the aforesaid resolution being arbitrary, invalid and it has subjected the petitioners to the hostile discrimination. The argument advanced by Mr. Mukherjee and his learned junior on legitimate expectation in the context of rolling back by the subsequent notification do not find place in the petition. Though the theory of legitimate expectation as well as points ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any meeting exceeds two-third of the total strength, the number of the remaining Directors during such time shall form the quorum. ( b )For the purpose of clause ( a ) ( i ) total strength means total strength of the board of directors of the company determined in pursuance of the Act, after deducting therefrom number of the Directors, if any, whose place may be vacant at the time, and ( ii ) interested Directors means any Director whose presence cannot by reason of any provision in the Act, count for the purpose of forming a quorum at a meeting of the Board, at the time of the discussion or vote on any matter." 14. Admittedly two Directors were present on that date so requisite quorum was duly formed. Moreover, there was ratification of this resolution by some other Directors. So, I hold the Resolution was adopted by validly constituted Board of Directors. 15. Next question is whether there is any reason for material for adopting this resolution or not. 16. It appears from the minutes of 39th Board Meeting that the respondent-corporation was not in fact willing to accept stipulation of the Central Government for enhancing retirement age from 58 years to 60 y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a of the Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees to 60 years is to lighten unwarranted financial burden aiming at to strengthen the economy of the country. When such decision was taken it was not perhaps foreseen that such a policy decision of the Government would have reverse effect to a number of public sector undertakings. So considering all the aspects the aforesaid right of applying for exemption was given to all public sector undertakings. Therefore, I hold that subsequent decision providing for granting exemption is policy decision taken in larger interest of the public. 18. Now whether I should strike down the decision taken by the respondent-corporation following grant of exemption on the ground that the aforesaid Memorandum dated 21-8-1998 is without any norms and/or guidelines, or not. 19. In my view in all cases the action cannot be struck down on the above ground. The object of providing norms and guidelines in executive action is to guard against arbitrary and whimsical step being taken and further to contain unreasonableness. If it is found that decision has been taken pursuant to an unguided and/or uncontrolled power, reasonably and with ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rimination but not reasonable classification. Thus, where persons belonging to a particular class in view of their special attributes, qualities, mode of recruitment and the like, are differently treated in public interest to advance and boost members belonging to backward classes, such a classification would not amount to discrimination having close nexus with the object sought to be achieved so that in such cases article 14 will be completely out of the way. 22. In this case the Indian Airlines Corporation though a public sector undertaking and controlled by the Government but it is run autono- mously. The survival of the business of the company is paramount. The financial condition and activity of the business of the respondent-corporation cannot be equated with other public sector undertakings, viz., Sail and Banking Corpn. This corporation stands on a different footing and it has to run its business competing with other rival operators. This corporation while carrying on business has to conform with the international standards as to its efficiency. So the economic soundness is the only criteria to run this business efficiently. When it is found that the earlier policy de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnum change of retirement age has been done away with aiming at to restore original age of retirement that was prevailing at the time of appointment. 25. Another point which should not be brushed aside is that this petition in fact has been made by only one petitioner, viz., the petitioner No. 1. He does not appear to have any authority on behalf of others. The other petitioners have not even signed the petition, in fact as rightly submitted by Mr. Gupta that the petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 are not even sui juris. As such it cannot be said that this action has been taken on behalf of majority section of the employees. So it appears to me that when a majority section of the employees have not come forward to challenge the same it can safely be held that the aforesaid changed decision is reasonable and is conducive to the working condition of the employees. It would be useful in relation to this subject to rely on a decision of the Supreme Court cited by Mr. Gupta in Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. Ltd. s case ( supra ). In paragraph 6 of the said decision it was observed amongst other that grievance of small section of workmen as regard bipartite settlement, cannot be factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
