IMPORTANT POINT
Age of Retirement – Clause 17(7)(iii) of Standing Orders of ITI Limited only enables company to continue any employee in service till he or she attains age of 60 years subject to medical fitness at end of each year – Clause 17(7)(iii) does not confer any right on employees to seek extension till completion of 60 years.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. This Civil Appeal raises a very narrow controversy. The issue concerns the interpretation of clause 17(7)(iii) of the Certified Standing Orders (for short, ‘the Standing Orders’) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 in respect of the appellant – company. The appellant – company is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) of the Government of India. On 11th June 1998, by a circular, an amendment was made to Rule 35 of the ITI Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the said Rules’). Amended clause 2(d) of Rule 35 of the said Rules provided that an employee completing the age of 58 years, will continue in service till the completion of the age of 60 years, subject to medical fitness at the end of each year. On 22nd August 2001, the Department of Public Enterprises issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) directing that the Hon’ble Ministerincharge of the concerned administrative Ministry would have the authority to approve the rollback of the retirement age for all PSUs, on the basis of the decision of the Board of Directors of the concerned PSU. The Board of Directors of the appellant – company proposed to roll back the age of retirement from 60 to 58 years. The said proposal was approved by the concerned Ministry on 20th November 2001.

2. A writ petition was filed by the respondents before the High Court of Karnataka for challenging the rollback. The writ petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the circular dated 27th March 2002 by which the effect was given to the decision of rollback by carrying out necessary amendments to the said Rules and in particular, to Rule 35. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant to take note of various factors as indicated in the judgment while considering the issue of the reduction in the retirement age from 60 to 58 years. Pending the decision of the appellant, a direction was issued to the appellant to continue its employees till the age of 60 years. However, it was clarified that those who have already attained the age of 58 years, will not get any relief. Both parties filed writ appeals for challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the learned Single Judge was not right in setting aside the decision to roll back the age of retirement. However, it was held that the rollback cannot have the effect of affecting the existing rights of employees and the company recognised in terms of clause 17(7)(iii) of the Standing Orders.

SUBMISSIONS

3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that clause (17)(7)(iii) does not confer any right on any of the employees. His submission is that the said clause gives discretion to the appellant–employer to consider the case of any employee to permit him to serve up to the age of 60 years, subject to medical fitness at the end of each year. This clause does not confer any right on any employee to be considered for continuation till the age of 60 years. His submission is that the said clause enables the appellant to continue the employment of certain employees, if after considering the exigencies of work, the appellant was desirous of continuing with their employment. The learned counsel also invited our attention to material placed on record indicating reasons for effecting rollback from 60 to 58 years. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the direction issued in paragraph 28 of the judgment, needs to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents and/or intervenors urged that all that paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment directs is that the effect should be given to clause 17(7)(iii) and therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the said direction.

OUR VIEW

5. On 11th June 1998, the appellant amended Rule 35 of the said Rules by which, the age of retirement of the employees was extended to 60 years. Co