STATE OF KERALA Vs. MOHANABALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the connected writ appeals are filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation shall be 58 years in terms of Resolution No. 2525 dated 15-3-2006 passed by the then Board of Directors of the Corporation. Connected writ petitions which led to the judgments were filed by various employees of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter called the "Corporation", who were on the verge of retirement at the age of 55 in terms of Regulation 13 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1963, hereinafter called the "Regulations". The common Respondent in all the writ appeals is the Corporation itself, which is supporting the State in the appeals filed by them. We have heard Additional Advocate General appearing for the Appellant, Senior Counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan and Adv. Sri Deepu Thankan appearing for the employees, who are party Respondents in the writ appeals and standing Counsel for the Corporation.

(2.) The Corporation is established under Section 18 of the Warehousing Corporation's Act, 1962, hereinafter called the "Act". Regulations were framed by the Corporation with the previous sanction of the State Government under Section 42(1) of the Act and the same was published on 18-6-1964. Under Clause 13 of the Regulations, the retirement age of employees was 55 years, which continued until 2006 when the Board of Directors of the Corporation passed the resolution on 15-3-2006 proposing to increase the retirement age of employees from 55 to 58. This resolution is produced as Ext.P-2 in the writ petition against which W.A. 1909/07 was filed. However, when the Corporation sought approval from the Government vide Managing Director's letter dated 29-3-2006, which is produced as Ext.P-3, the Government vide Ext.P-9 dated 17-7-2006 declined to approve the proposal. The Government decision was challenged by the writ Petitioners before this Court and during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Board of the Corporation passed Anr. resolution on 29-3-2007 recalling the earlier resolution recommending increase in the retirement age of employees. The learned Single Judge allowed all the writ petitions vacating the decision of the Government rejecting request for approval of increase in the retirement age and after quashing the later resolution passed by the Board of the Corporation. This Court declared that the retirement age of employees shall be 58 in terms of the original resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 15-3-2006. Appellant's case is that State has the authority to decide all the policy matters and regulation itself was framed with the previous sanction of the Government and so much so, without prior permission of the Government, Corporation cannot amend the regulations or increase the retirement age of the employees. On behalf of the Corporation, standing Counsel supported the view taken by the State and according to him when Government declined permission to increase the retirement age, the Board, in consonance with such decision of the Government, recalled the earlier resolution, based on which, writ petitions were filed. Sr. Counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan and Adv. Sri Deepu Thankan appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, referred to Section 20(1) of the Act and contended that since the management of the Corporation is vested in the Board of Directors, their decision in regard to retirement age of employees, evidenced by Ext.P-2 resolution, shall bind the Government. Alternatively, they contended that, the Government, through a single sentence order, cannot turn down the recommendation of the Board with regard to the increase in the retirement age of the employees in an arbitrary manner. The Additional Advocate General and Standing Counsel for the Corporation on me other hand contended that even under Section 20(4) of the Act, policy decisions in regard to Corporation are taken by the State Government and the same are binding on the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

(3.) After hearing both sides and after going through the provisions of the Act and Regulations, particularly Clause 13 of the Regulations, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not tenable. Admittedly, the State Warehousing Corporation constituted under Section 18 in terms of the issue of share capital under Section 19 is actually under the control of the State and Central Governments with Central Warehousing Corporation also retaining their investment in the Corporation. The management of the Corporation is done in terms of the Regulation framed under Section 42 of the Act, which is as follows: