The main legal point established in the judgment is that the corporation's rules prescribing the age of superannuation remained operative despite the adoption of the Karnataka civil service regulations, and the chosen forum for adjudication was not proper.

( 1 ) WHAT is the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of respondent-karnataka land army corporation is the moot question that falls for determination in this batch of writ petitions. Most of the petitioners were working as task force commanders while one each out of them was working as a tracer, a second division clerk, an attender and an assistant task force commander. Each one of the petitioners appears to have received an endorsement from the respondent-corporation intimating to them that they will superannuate from the service of the corporation with effect from the date they attained the age of 55 years. The petitioners contend that the endorsement issued to them are illegal as the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of the corporation is 58 years and not 55 years, as suggested by the respondent. They have therefore assailed the endorsements and prayed for a mandamus directing the corporation to continue them in service till such time they attain the age of 58 years.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for petitioners argued that even though the respondent-corporation has framed what are known as "karnataka land army corporation service rules", yet the said rules are inoperative as the same have not been approved by the government. They rely upon a resolution passed by the board of directors of the corporation in its 74th meeting held on 17 may 1991, whereby the corporation had resolved to follow the Karnataka civil service regulations except the Provisions relating to pension and other allied matters. They contend that according to the Karnataka civil service regulations, the age of retirement being 58 years, the impugned endorsement and the superannuation of the petitioners on the basis thereof was wholly unsustainable.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the corporation it was argued that the resolution passed by the board of director made the kc. s. rs. Applicable only in respect of such matters as were not otherwise covered by the rules framed by the corporation. They urged that since the rules framed by the corporation specifically provided for the age of superannuation of its employees, the Provisions of kc. s. rs. , Had no application to the said employees in so far as the retirement age was concerned. They contended that the service rules framed by the corporation had come into force with effect from 9th august, 1974, and had been implemented by the corporation over the years. The said rules according to the learned counsel for the corporation did not require any approval of the government in order to be effective. Reliance was also placed by the respondents upon the subsequent board resolutions passed in the 87th and 89th meeting held on 31st december, 1993 and 29th june, 1994, by which the request made by some of its employees for extension of the age of retirement from 55 years to 58 years was rejected.

( 4 ) THE respondent-corporation is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. In terms of paras 88 and 89 (xx) of the articles of associates of the company, the board of directors are empowered to frame service rules applicable to the employees of the corporation. In exercise of the said power, the corporation has framed the Karnataka land army corporation service rules which in terms of Rule 1. 1 (b) thereof came into force with effect from 9th august, 1974. Rule 3. 18 of the said rules, pertains to superannuation and retirement, the relevant portion whereof reads thus:"rule 3. 18. superannuation and retirement: (a) every employee appointed to the service of the corporation shall retire when he attains the age of 55 years".

( 5 ) THE argument that the rules aforementioned were inoperative so long as the government did not approve the same appears to me to be without any substance. I say so because para 94 of the articles of association of the respondent-corporation which identifies matters reserved for the approval of the government, does not include the framing of the service