M.L. Bhat. J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is a member of supervisory staff of a Company known as M/s. Athorton west and Company Ltd He is working as a Printing Supervisor in the said Company. It is stated that the management of the said Company was taken over by the Union of India by an Act of Parliament known as the Laxmi Ratan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (taking over of management) Act 1976, for short called as the Act of 1976. In pursuance of Section 3 of the Act of 1976, the management of the said Mil' was vested in the Central Government and the Central Government was empowered to appoint custodian for the administrative convenience and the custodian has been empowered to appoint additional custodian to look after the management of the undertaking.
(2.) THE Central Government is said to have appointed M/s. National Textile Corporation Ltd. New Delhi as custodian for the said Mill which in term appointed Respondent No. 1 as additional custodian for the management of the Mill. It is averred by the Petitioner that prior to 1962 there was no age of retirement in the textile mills of Kanpur. However, Dr. Sampurnanand award provided 60 years as the age of retirement. A copy of the extract of the award is filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The age of retirement for the workers (Shramik) is fixed as 60 years. The Petitioner challenges the two orders of the Respondents whereby they are said to have fixed the age of retirement of their supervisory staff at 58 years. It is stated that in other taxtile mills in Kanpur the age of retirement is 60 years. Prior to taking over of the management of the Mill under the Act of 1976, the age of retirement of the supervisory staff of the company was 60 years. Respondent No. 2 is said to have, vide its order dated 31 -5 -90, informed that the supervisory staff of M/s. Athorton Mill and Laxmi Ratan Mills would be retired at the age of 58 years. In pursuance of the said order, the Petitioner was served with another order dated 8 -6 -90 by which he was asked that he would be relieved with effect from 7 -7 -90 on completion of his 58 years of age, copies of both these orders are annexed to this writ petition. It is contended that previous management has entered the date of birth of the Petitioner as 9 -3 -1932 whereas the Petitioner's date of birth in the employees state Insurance Record is shown as year of birth of the Petitioner as 1936. Before passing the order dated 31 -5 -90 the Petitioner and the other members of the supervisory staff were not heard. It is contended that the Act of 1976 does not empower the Respondent to change the existing terms and conditions of employment of the employees. The Petitioner is said to have made a representation also protesting against the fixation of the age of retirement as 58 years. The impugned order dated 31 -5 -90 is said to be misconceived. It has the effect of changing the conditions of service of the Petitioner unilaterally. The relief of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31 -5 -90 and 8 -6 -90 and the relief of mandamus not to interfere with the working or the Petitioner are claimed on number of grounds. It is contended that the Act of 1976 has not empowered the Respondents to alter the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the taken over mills. The Respondents' action is without any authority of law. The Petitioner has not opted for terms and conditions of the service of the Respondents. The impugned orders are without complying with the principles of natural justice. The impugned orders are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE Petitioner has moved an application for amendment also. He wants to add para 10 -A in the writ petition and ground No. 'G' also It is contended in the amended plea that the Petitioner's date of birth is not 1932 He wants to show that his date of birth is 21 -7 -1935 and on the basis of said date of birth he is to be retired in July, 1993.;