Corporate restructuring and surplus employee identification upheld, with limited reconsideration directed for physically disabled employees.

A State-owned company's restructuring, including reduction of cadre strength and abolition of posts, was treated as valid where the articles empowered Government directions on staffing and the policy was not shown to be arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16. Identification of surplus employees by last come first go within each category was upheld as a reasonable, uniform method, and the absence of prior individual hearing did not vitiate the exercise on the facts. Special claims for roster backwards or retention based on category status were largely rejected, though Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were to be re-examined in line with the earlier direction. Physically disabled employees were given separate protective consideration, with the Corporation directed to examine roster backwards for them.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government had authority under the company's articles and the constitutional framework to fix and reduce the cadre strength of the Corporation; (ii) Whether the procedure of identifying surplus employees by applying the principle of last come first go in each category and without prior hearing was arbitrary or violative of natural justice; (iii) Whether the claim for applying roster backwards or reversion/retention on the basis of special categories such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, women, deputationists, work-charged employees and similar groups was sustainable; and (iv) Whether the case of physically disabled employees required a different treatment.

Issue (i): Whether the Government had authority under the company's articles and the constitutional framework to fix and reduce the cadre strength of the Corporation.

Analysis: The Corporation was held to be a Government company with a distinct legal personality, but the articles expressly empowered the Government to issue directives on staffing pattern and related matters. The decision to downsize the establishment was treated as part of a broader restructuring and policy exercise, not as an ultra vires interference in a statutory field. The Court held that the Articles of Association bound the company and its directors, and that the validity of the governmental action, taken in the capacity of shareholder and supported by the corporate record, could not be tested as if it were a statutory administrative order. The policy was also examined in the context of Articles 14 and 16 and was found not to be arbitrary.

Conclusion: The Government had authority to fix the cadre strength, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the procedure of identifying surplus employees by applying the principle of last come first go in each category and without prior hearing was arbitrary or violative of natural justice.

Analysis: The Court held that reduction of cadre strength and abolition of posts are matters of policy, and that the Corporation's uniform method of identifying surplus employees by reverse seniority within each category was a recognized and reasonable method. The Court further held that the matter did not require individual pre-decisional hearing at the stage of identification, because the exercise had already been shaped by the prior restructuring decision and no real prejudice was shown. The procedure was found to be non-arbitrary and compatible with Articles 14 and 16, and the absence of a hearing did not vitiate the action on the facts.

Conclusion: The identification procedure was upheld and the plea based on natural justice was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for applying roster backwards or reversion/retention on the basis of special categories such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, women, deputationists, work-charged employees and similar groups was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes stood on a different constitutional footing and agreed with the direction to re-examine their cases with reference to roster backwards. By contrast, Backward Classes could not claim the same benefit as of right, women had not been appointed under any quota, deputationists retained only a lien and could be counted in the sanctioned strength, and employees of the work-charged establishment or absorbed employees could not claim a superior status to regular employees. The Court also held that creation of supernumerary posts would defeat the restructuring exercise and that absorption in Government departments could not be directed in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The special claims were rejected except that the treatment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was left to be re-examined in accordance with the earlier direction already accepted by the Court.

Issue (iv): Whether the case of physically disabled employees required a different treatment.

Analysis: The Court noted the protective object of the disability legislation and the separate class status of persons with disabilities. It held that the Corporation should consider whether the general rule of last come first go ought to yield in their case and whether roster backwards should be applied, similar to the treatment accorded to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in order to protect the special statutory rights of disabled employees.

Conclusion: The Corporation was directed to examine the feasibility of applying roster backwards for physically disabled employees and take a fresh decision expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The restructuring decision, cadre reduction and identification of surplus employees were upheld, the broad challenge to the policy failed, and only the limited protective reconsideration for physically disabled employees survived.

Ratio Decidendi: A restructuring policy of a State-owned company, including abolition of posts and identification of surplus employees by a reasonable uniform criterion, is not liable to interference under Article 226 unless it is arbitrary or unconstitutional, and special protection may be directed only where a separate statutory or constitutional classification justifies deviation from the general rule.

---