Case: Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Employees’ Union (Affiliated To Rashtriya Shramik Congress) &amp; Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Trade Commerce &amp; Mining Department Mantralaya, Through Its Secretary &amp; Another

He stated that State Government has given cogent reasons for providing uniformity and those reasons are not in dispute. Members of petitioner-Union in Writ Petition No.2004/2002 or petitioner in Writ Petition No.5223/2004 have not worked after reaching age of 58 years and hence are not entitled to any wages or other benefits. As there are no allegation of any malice, the petitioners should not be given any relief and petitions should be dismissed.12. With the assistance of respective counsel, we have perused the papers. The Articles of Association of company i.e. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Limited are not in dispute. Article 75 on which parties have placed reliance is as under : 75. Without prejudice to the generality of the above provisions, the Board shall reserve for decision of the State Government - (1) rules of the company governing the conditions of service of the employees, Provident Fund and other rules, creation of Reserve and Special Fund; (2) sale, lease or disposal otherwise of the whole or substantially the whole of the undertaking of the company; (3) formation of a subsidiary Company.13. The provisions relied upon by Adv. Marpakwar which cloathe Board of Directors of company with power to frame service conditions are contained in chapter XII. In chapter XII in clause (5) power has been given to Board of Directors to appoint and remove, suspend Managers, Secretaries, Officers, Clerks, Agents and servants, for permanent temporary or special services and to fix and determine their duties, salaries, emoluments. It is stipulated that no appointment to a post of which maximum pay is more than 2000 per month can be made without prior approval of State Government. Clause (16) permits Board of Directors to make, vary and repeal from time to time byelaws for regulation of business of company, its officers and servants. Clause (17) empowers Board to give or allow any bonus, pension, gratuity, compensation to any employee of the company. These clauses therefore show that bye-laws to regulate the business of officers or servants including their service conditions need to be framed only by Board of Directors. It is not in dispute that accordingly the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules have been framed by Board of Directors. Article 75 reproduced supra required Board to reserve for decision of State Government Rules of company governing conditions of service of employees, provident fund and other rules. These bye-laws or rules were accordingly sent to State Government and in exercise of these powers, State Government has granted necessary approval through its General Administration Department on 16th August,1982. Approval has been published by Ministry of Industries, Energy and Labour Department of State Government in October, 1982. These Service Rules or Bye-laws titled Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Limited are in force since then. The provision relating to superannuation is contained in these Rules and it is already reproduced by us supra.14. Thus, the power to frame Service Rules and to decide service conditions with Board of Directors of respondent-company and in exercise of that power, age of superannuation has been determined at 60. The Rules could not have been brought into force without getting it approved from State Government but State Government approved it in August, 1982. Thus, 60 is the stipulated age of superannuation in these Service bye-laws or service rules. Service Rule reproduced supra itself mentions that age of superannuation has to be 60 years or then such other age as may be agreed upon between management and employees by any agreement, settlement or award. Such agreement, settlement or award has to be binding on the Management and the employees for the time being force. Neither petitioners nor management has pointed out any agreement, settlement or award. 60 is the age stipulated in Service Rules approved by State Government and that age therefore is the age of superannuation in terms of various provisions mentioned supra, and remained to be so till 24.10.2001.15. On 24.10.2001 State Government has come up with a Government Resolution and reduced that age from 60 to 58 years. The reason therefor is the age of superannuation of State Government employees. One fails to understand why employees of State Government needed to be compared with employees of Mining Corporation (company) for this purpose. There is no explanation tendered either by company or then by State Government in this respect.16. The State Government also has not quoted any power or sanction used by it for issuing this resolution dated 24.10.2001. When the Articles of Association do not empower the State Government to issue any directions and service conditions are to be framed by the Board of Directors of Mining Corporation, the State Government itself for any reason could not have brought down the age of superannuation. This exercise of power by State Government is not supported by any legal provision.17. The petitioner-Trade Union in Writ Petition No.2004/2002 has gone to Industrial Court and filed ULP (Complaint) under Unfair Labour Practice under item 9 Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act, because of violation of Section 9A of Industrial Disputes Act. It appears that if their contention that provisions of Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and Model Standing Orders framed therein which prescribe age of superannuation to be 60 years, has to prevail over GR dated 24.10.2001 is accepted, the age of superannuation even, in that case, would have been 60 only for all those who qualify as workmen under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Marpakwar has relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of The U.P. State Electricity Board and another vs. Hari Shankar Jain and others, reported at (1978) 4 SCC 16. 18. Here, as we find that the power to determine age of superannuation is exclusively with the Board of Directors of Mining Corporation and Board of Directors has not resolved either before or after 24.10.2001 to bring it down to 58 years, the age of superannuation stipulated in clause (ix) supra, must operate and prevail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. Here, as we find that the power to determine age of superannuation is exclusively with the Board of Directors of Mining Corporation and Board of Directors has not resolved either before or after 24.10.2001 to bring it down to 58 years, the age of superannuation stipulated in clause (ix) supra, must operate and prevail.