Holding

The Court held that the classification of management and clerical staff with different retirement ages is a reasonable distinction and does not violate Article 14, and that the petitioners are not entitled to relief under Article 32.

Summary

The petitioners, officers of the management staff of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., challenged the company's policy of setting the retirement age at 58 years for management staff while the clerical staff retire at 60 years, alleging discrimination under Articles 12, 14 and 32 of the Constitution. The Court held that the two groups constitute separate classifications and that the differential retirement ages constitute a reasonable distinction, not violative of Article 14. It further observed that the grievance of the management staff falls within the domain of industrial dispute adjudication and not within the scope of a writ under Article 32. The petitioners failed to present all material necessary to support their claim, whereas the respondent justified the existing retirement age. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the differential retirement ages for management staff (58 years) and clerical staff (60 years) amount to discrimination prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioners, as management officers, are entitled to invoke the remedy of Article 32 for this grievance.
Whether the classification of employees into management and clerical categories is a reasonable differentiation.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 32 as opposed to an industrial tribunal.

Legislation cited

Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act
Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 32

Subjects

Article 14EqualityRetirement ageClassificationManagement staffClerical staffIndustrial disputeArticle 32Constitutional remedyDiscrimination

Judgment

A

TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.
v.
M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
AND ANOTHER .B

SEPTEMBER 11, 1986

[R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
'
Constitution of India 1950:
c
Articles 12, 14 & 32-Retirement ag~58 years for management
staff and (j(J years for clerical staff-Whether discriminatory.

The age of superannuation of the clerical staff employed under the D
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 iige of
r!'tirement between two groups of employees gives rise to discriminat-
ory treatment. They also claim that in keeping with the current trend in
the commercial field such age should be fixed at 60. E
Dismissing the petitions, the Court,

HELD: 1. Classification on the basis of reasonable differentia is
a well· known bll$iS. Clerical staff and officers of the management staff
belong to separate classifications. Therefore, the petitioners, in the fact F
j _of the case, are not entitled to seek support from Article 14 for their
claim. [741F]

. 2. The claim of the clerical staff arose in an industrial dispute.
The scope of such adjudication is wide and broad-based.' The Tribunal
bas expansive jurisdiction to exercise when a reference is made to it. G
This Court in appeal against the Award was exercising the samejurisdic-
tion 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 Constitu-
tion. Tbe Officers of the management staff are not workmen. [741G-H]

3. The petitioners have not brought before the Court all the mate- H

739
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A rial relevant to the making of a claim as made from which support could
be bad. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 in its affidavit in \~
opposition has placed various aspects to justify fixation and continua-
tion of the present age of retirement. [742E-F]

4. In keeping with the trend of. t!ie times, a claim of the type as
B
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 au application under Article 32 is the proper re-
medy for it. However, the petitioners are not entitled to their claim in
these applications. (742F-G] .) -
c
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,
D
[1984] 1 SCR 251, Mis. British Paints (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen,
[1966] 2 SCR 523 and G.M. Talangand othersv. Shaw Wallace and Co.
& Anr., I1964] 7 SCR 424, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.
15466-67 of 1984 Etc.
E
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

M.K. Ramamurthi, P. Gaur and Jitendra Sharma for the
Petitioners.
F -'\
G.B. Pai, O.C. Mathur, Miss Deepa Sabra and. Mrs. Meera
Mathur for the Respondents. )-.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANA TH MISRA, J. All these applications under Article
G 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-
H
TEJINDERSINGH v. B.P.C.L. IMISRA, J.] 741

ers that in keeping with the current trend in the commercial field such A
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
B
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 c
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 l4 in case there indeed be any discrimination.

This Court in Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. (Refining .Division) Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation D
Ltd. and another, [1984] 1SCR251 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 discriminat-
ory treatment. This starid is not tenable for more than one reason.
Clerical staff and officers of-ihe management staff belong to separate E
classifications and no argument is necessary in support of it. Petition-
ers 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 F
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 G
has expansive jurisdiction to exercise when a reference is made to it.
This Court in appeal against the Award was exercising the same juris-
diction 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 offic-
ers of the management staff are not workmen. H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A It is true that this Court in Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (Refining Division) Bombay, I1984] 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
B 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 circumst-
ances fixing the age of retirement at 60 years would be fair
and proper, unless there are special circumstances justify-
c ing fixation of a lower age of retirement."

Again in G.M. Ta/ang and others v. Shaw Wallace and Co. & Anr.,
I1964] 7 SCR 424 this Court referred to the Report of the Norms
Committee where it was said:

D "After taking into consideration the views of the earlier
Committees and Commissions including those of the Sec-
ond 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."

E 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
F continuation of the present age of retirement. It may be that some day,
ii!. 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 ap-
propriate materiarthan now. If this Court is moved, it has then to be
considered whether an application under Article 32 is the proper re-
G medy 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.