TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. versus M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 11-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. 
v. 
M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 
A 
AND ANOTHER 
. B 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1986 
[R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
' 
Constitution of India 1950: 
Articles 12, 14 & 32-Retirement ag~58 years for management 
staff and (j(J years for clerical staff-Whether discriminatory. 
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 iige of 
r!'tirement between two groups of employees gives rise to discriminat-
ory 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 bll$iS. Clerical staff and officers of the management staff 
j 
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. [741F] 
. 2. The claim of the clerical staff arose in an industrial dispute. 
The scope of such adjudication is wide and broad-based.' The Tribunal 
c 
D 
E 
F 
bas expansive jurisdiction to exercise when a reference is made to it. 
G 
This Court in appeal against the Award was exercising the same jurisdic-
tion 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 Constitu-
tion. Tbe Officers of the management staff are not workmen. [741G-H] 
3. The petitioners have not brought before the Court all the mate-
H 
739 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
rial relevant to the making of a claim as made from which support could 
be bad. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 in its affidavit in 
\~ 
opposition has placed various aspects to justify fixation and continua-
tion of the present age of retirement. [742E-F] 
4. In keeping with the trend of. t!ie 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 au application under Article 32 is the proper re-
medy for it. However, the petitioners are not entitled to their claim in 
these applications. (742F-G] 
.) -
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 2 SCR 111, 
followed. 
Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Refining 
Division) Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another, 
[1984] 1 SCR 251, Mis. British Paints (India) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, 
[1966] 2 SCR 523 and G.M. Talangand othersv. Shaw Wallace and Co. 
& Anr., I 1964] 7 SCR 424, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) 
Nos. 
15466-67 of 1984 Etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
M.K. Ramamurthi, P. Gaur and Jitendra Sharma for the 
Petitioners. 
G.B. Pai, O.C. Mathur, Miss Deepa Sabra and. Mrs. Meera -'\ 
Mathur for the Respondents. 
)-. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANA TH 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-
"· 
).._ -
TEJINDERSINGH v. B.P.C.L. IMISRA, J.] 
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 v. Union of India & Anr., [1981] 2 SCR 
111 this Court has held Respondent No. 1 to. be "State" within .the 
meaning of Article 12 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.