K.K. OMANAKUTTAN Vs. THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition challenging the judgment dated 21.08.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 15954 of 2013.

(2.) THE petitioners are the employees of the 3rd respondent company, HMT Limited. Originally they were appointed in the HMT Limited by the 2nd respondent therein. At the time when they were in service, the age of superannuation was 60 years. By virtue of an order passed by the Company Law Board in a scheme of arrangement submitted by HMT Limited, certain of their employees including the petitioners, were shifted to HMT Machine Tools Limited. The age of superannuation in HMT Machine Tools Limited was reduced from 60 to 58 years. According to the petitioners, since they were appointed and transferred to HMT Machine Tools Limited, by virtue of the directions issued in terms of Ext.P10 letter dated 19.06.2001 wherein it is clearly indicated that there would not be any change in the service conditions, they are entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. According to them, the 3rd respondent has no right to reduce their age of superannuation.

(3.) IT is a settled position of law that the employer can change the service conditions unless the decision is arbitrary or illegal. As far as the present situation is concerned by virtue of Ext.R2(b) dated 28.11.2003, a decision was taken to reduce the age of retirement of workmen, from 60 years to 58 years. Ext.R2(b) reads as under: