Aloke Chakraborti, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Malay Basu, Learned counsel of the Tyre Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Corporation') and its authorities and Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Union of India.
(2.) The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is rolling back of age of retirement of the employees of the said corporation. Admittedly, in respect of employees of the said corporation age of retirement earlier was 58 years and it was increased to 60 years in the year 1998 following a Government Policy. On May 9, 2000, further Government policy was declared for rolling back the age of retirement age in 58 years in respect of employees generally giving some guidelines. Following the same a further memorandum dated October 17, 2000 was issued. The Board of Directors of the said corporation adopted a resolution for rolling back the age of retirement of the employees of the corporation. Such resolution was dated November 14, 2000. While confirming the said resolution in the next meeting of the Board of Directors of the said corporation on March 14, 2001 some alterations were effected as regards discussion in the meeting before resolution was taken in its earlier meeting. The implementation of such decision and the said resolutions have been challenged by the petitioner association on the ground such decision was not in accordance with the guidelines given in the original policy of the Government and strong contention has been made that though policy of the Government is not being challenged but implementation of the said policy is being challenged on the ground that the same was not in accordance with the guidelines provided in the policy itself.
(3.) Mr. Mitra, appearing for the petitioner contended that the policy was on the proposal for rolling back the age of retirement in the case of "some sick/unviable P.S.Us for which rehabilitation/revival packages are under consideration. "The procedure for the same, as recorded in the said office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 was that "in such cases the board of the concerned company should review its decision on the rolling back of age of retirement and make suitable recommendations to the administrative ministry/department concerned for taking the approval of the cabinet." Admittedly the said policy decision was subsequently changed to the extent the approval was no more required from the cabinet but from the Hon'ble Minister concerned. It is the contention of the petitioner that the memorandum issued on October 17, 2000 on the basis of the aforesaid policy decision dated May 9, 2000, recorded a consideration that some public sector enterprises under the administrative control of department of heavy industry are unable to generate sufficient resources even for meeting expenditure on account of salary and wages of their employees and have to seek budgetary support on this account and in this situation it was observed to be appropriate that such enterprises which are seeking Government support for meeting their wage bills resort to the measure of reduction of the retirement age of their employee to 58 years. It was categorically recorded therein that procedure laid down in the office memorandum dated May 9, 2000 is to be observed.;