Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004
In M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P.
Electricity Board (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that
" Alterations in the age of retirement by the employer is a
matter of executive policy and for sufficient and cogent reasons,
the same is permissible."
Chairman-Cum-M.D. Iti Limited vs K.Muniswamy . on 2 March, 2023
In ITI Ltd. V. K. Muniswamy (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that:
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 617 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors on 13 November, 2013
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Giri Krishna
submits that the 1st respondent failed to see that petitioner
initially joined in service in HMT Limited and the service
conditions of employees of HMT Limited are one and the same in
all the units of HMT Limited. The letter dated 14.06.2001 makes
it clear that even after transfer of petitioner to HMT Machine
Tools Limited, his service conditions are not changed from that
of HMT Limited, as such he is entitled for enhancement of age of
superannuation, stresses learned counsel. According to the
learned counsel, earlier, on two occasions, when the 3rd
respondent had taken a policy decision amending the age of
superannuation, HMT Limited had applied the same to
5
employees in all the five units. He emphasizes that in view of
the clearance by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs
(CCEA), the age of retirement which was enhanced from 58 to
60 years is applicable to all the employees of HMT Limited,
hence, directing petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years is
illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 18409 of
2018 (Smt. K.J. Vijayamma v. HMT Limited), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.T. Shastri 1 and Balwant
Rai Saluja v. Air India Limited 2.
Union Of India & Ors vs K.T. Shastri on 12 January, 1990
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. Giri Krishna
submits that the 1st respondent failed to see that petitioner
initially joined in service in HMT Limited and the service
conditions of employees of HMT Limited are one and the same in
all the units of HMT Limited. The letter dated 14.06.2001 makes
it clear that even after transfer of petitioner to HMT Machine
Tools Limited, his service conditions are not changed from that
of HMT Limited, as such he is entitled for enhancement of age of
superannuation, stresses learned counsel. According to the
learned counsel, earlier, on two occasions, when the 3rd
respondent had taken a policy decision amending the age of
superannuation, HMT Limited had applied the same to
5
employees in all the five units. He emphasizes that in view of
the clearance by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs
(CCEA), the age of retirement which was enhanced from 58 to
60 years is applicable to all the employees of HMT Limited,
hence, directing petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years is
illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 18409 of
2018 (Smt. K.J. Vijayamma v. HMT Limited), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.T. Shastri 1 and Balwant
Rai Saluja v. Air India Limited 2.
M/S. Asian Motors Mp Iv/165 vs State Of Kerala on 28 December, 2015
iv) DR Prakasan M P. v. State of Kerala 5
3
(2023) 4 SCC 373
4
(2004) 9 SCC 755
5
AIR 2023 SC 4059
C.M.Prakash vs State Of Kerala & Anr. Etc. on 5 January, 2017
In DR Prakasan M P. v. State of Kerala, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
1