Point of law :Industrial dispute - Petitioner and other employees shall be paid all the terminal benefits upto the age of 58 years and not beyond that, including gratuity. In case the petitioner succeeds in the Industrial Dispute, the difference in backwages, if any, shall be paid, after adjusting the amount already made pursuant to the interim orders

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of the 2nd Respondent in reducing the age of retirement of employees from 60 to 58 years unilaterally and contrary to the Service Rules of the Plastic Export Promotion Council as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently, direct the Respondents to retain the petitioner in service till he completes the age of 60 years, i.e., on 28.02.2022)

The Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in reducing the age of retirement of employees from 60 to 58 years unilaterally and contrary to the Service Rules of the Plastic Export Promotion Council as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention to law, with the consequential direction to the Respondents to retain the petitioner in service, till he completes the age of 60 years on 28.02.2022.

Facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:

2. It was the case of the petitioner that the 2nd Respondent, namely, The Plastics Export Promotion Council (in short 'PEPC'), which is an Organization sponsored by the 1st Respondent and is governed by the Articles and Memorandum of Association, plays a role in advising the Government in respect of the policies to be adopted by it and mostly the members would be Central Government nominees. The 2nd Respondent, which is duty bound to comply with the directions of the 1st Respondent, is an instrumentality of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2.1. It was further case of the petitioner that he, who belongs to SC community, joined the 2nd Respondent in the year 1991 as Peon on daily wage basis and was appointed in the regular post of Peon by an order dated 30.01.1993 in Chennai. Thereafter, he was promoted as Daftry and Senior Daftry and his service is governed by the Service Rules of the Plastic Export Promotion Council. In the Council, there are 21 elected members, 3 nominated members by the Central Government and an Executive Director.

2.2. It was also the case of the Petitioner that as per Clause 8.3 of the Articles of Association, the retirement age for all the permanent employees is prescribed as 60 years, thereby, the date of retirement of the petitioner falls on 28.02.2022. When he sought for a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 3rd Respondent on 09.12.2019, it was communicated to him that since his revised age of retirement is 58 years, it is difficult to recover the amount in instalments and therefore, no loan can be granted to him. The petitioner was never informed about the revision of age and no amendment can be carried out without notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D.Act, 1947'), that too without amending the service rules. All the benefits, perks, etc., being paid to Central Government employees have been extended to the permanent employees of the 2nd Respondent and when the age of retirement of Central Government Employees is 60 years, it cannot be changed unilaterally in respect of the permanent employees of the 2nd Respondent without any intimation.

2.3. It was finally stated that the monthly salary is the only source of income for his livelihood and the Respondents 2 and 3, by taking into account the revised age of retirement as 58 years, falling on 11.02.2020, have been hurriedly taking steps to retire him from service. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner is before this Court for a suitable declaration with regard to the age of retirement.

3. The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein, it has been inter alia stated as under:

3.1. The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable against Respondents 2 and 3, as they do not fall under the definition of State or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Plastics Export Promotion Council is a company incorporated unde