ition Civil Nos
15466 67 of 1984 Etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India MK Ramamurthi P Gaur and Jitendra Sharma for the Petitioners
GB Pai OC 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 vs Union of India  Anr  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 vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another  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 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  quoted with approval its earlier observations in Ms British Paints India Ltd vs Its Workmen  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 GM Talang and others vs Shaw Wallace and Co  Anr 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
APJ Petitions dismissed


Summary:
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 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 vs Union of India  Anr   followed
Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd Refining Division Bombay vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and another   Ms British Paints India Ltd vs Its Workmen  and GM Talang and others vs Shaw Wallace and Co  Anr  referred to