http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

743