K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of Letters Patent Appeals is filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) of this Court on 26. 12. 2003 in S. C. A. No. 16329 and 17606 to 17612 of 2003 whereby the petitions filed by the present respondents in the Letters Patent Appeals and petitioners in the writ petitions were admitted and rule was issued and by way of an interim relief, the present appellant - Corporation and the original respondent is directed to allow the honorary Doctors to resume their duty and no action be taken against them except in accordance with law observing the principles of natural justice. The Corporation was also directed to comply with the said order forthwith and to report the compliance on or before 16. 01. 2004. ( 2 ) THE present Letters Patent Appeals were filed during the Winter vacation on 05. 01. 2004 and all the Appeals were admitted and in Civil Application Nos. 47 to 54 of 2004, this Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order and issued notice. On 21. 01. 2004, the matter has come up before us and after having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances obtainable from the record, we agree with the joint request that this matter requires expeditious adjudication and hence, instead of deciding the Letters Patent Appeals which are already against the interim order of the learned Single Judge, main matters i. e. S. C. A. No. 16329 of 2003 with S. C. A. Nos. 17606 to 17612 of 2003 were called for final hearing on merits. That is how all these Appeals as well as Special Civil Applications are heard together. ( 3 ) MR. C. N. Trivedi, learned advocate appearing for the original petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed by the G. S. R. T. C. as honorary part time Medical Officers and they were working for quite a long time. The petitioners have challenged the communication dated 02. 08. 2003 issued by the Chief Labour Officer, G. S. R. T. C. , Ahmedabad giving directions to all the Depots to retire honorary Medical Officers who have completed the age of 58 years with immediate effect. The Corporation has abruptly retired the honorary Doctors without following any procedure. The petitioners have challenged the communication dated 02. 08. 2003 issued by the Chief Labour Officer, G. S. R. T. C. , Ahmedabad giving directions to all the Depots to retire honorary Medical Officers who have completed the age of 58 years with immediate effect. The Corporation has abruptly retired the honorary Doctors without following any procedure. In the said communication dated 02. 08. 2003, it was stated that all honorary Medical Officers working in the Corporation are covered by the definition of workman under the Industrial Dispute Act and hence, retirement age applicable to the workman would equally apply to the honorary Doctors. Mr. Trivedi has further invited our attention to the Circular issued by the Corporation dated 30. 04. 1981 which is in relation to the appointment of honorary Medical Officers. Point No. 7 of the said Circular states that the Honorary Medical Officers will be entitled to 12 casual leave, one holiday in a week and 6 paid holidays. Point No. 11 of the said Circular states that whenever there is an occasion to discharge the honorary Medical Officers, one months notice is required to be given or one month salary is to be paid to the concerned Doctor. He has further submitted that there is no mention in the Circular about the age for retirement of the Honorary Medical Officers. Mr. Trivedi has further invited our attention to the Circular No. 40 dated 20. 04. 1987 wherein also it is stated that one months notice should be given to the Honorary Doctors before taking any decision to relieve them. Despite this Circular and the policy decision of the Corporation, the petitioners were relieved with immediate effect. Before approaching to this Court by way of filing writ petitions, the petitioners have approached to the Vice Chairman and Managing Director vide letter dated 29. 08. 2003 raising all these contentions. However, the Chief Labour Officer vide letter dated 05. 09. 2003 stated that there was no question of reconsidering the decision. However, the Corporation took note of the invaluable services rendered by the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE main argument of Mr. 08. 2003 raising all these contentions. However, the Chief Labour Officer vide letter dated 05. 09. 2003 stated that there was no question of reconsidering the decision. However, the Corporation took note of the invaluable services rendered by the petitioners. ( 4 ) THE main argument of Mr. Trivedi on behalf of the petitioners was that the procedure laid down under Industrial Dispute Act has not been followed as Section 25 (f) of the I. D. Act casts an obligation on the respondent Corporation to give one month notice or to pay one month salary in lieu of the notice before discharging the petitioners. No such notice has been given by the authority before terminating / retiring the petitioners from the service. As per the policy, practice and procedure and as per the requirement of law before taking such a decision, a resolution is required to be passed and approved in the Board meeting. No such Resolution has been passed and in absence of any such Resolution, no decision can be implemented as has been done by the respondent Corporation. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that the Chief Labour Officer has acted without any authority or jurisdiction as he is not the competent authority and any decision taken by the authority without jurisdiction is illegal, bad in law and does not have any force of law. The petitioners are Doctors and hence they are professionals and there was no question of superannuation age in their cases. In the public sector like L. I. C. , General Insurance Corporation and other such Corporations, doctors are appointed and they are allowed to work till age of 65 years. In the Employees State Insurance Corporation, the final retirement age of Doctors is fixed at 65 years. All these Corporations and Govt. Agencies are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there should not be any different yardstick for retirement of the doctors in the respondent Corporation. While giving appointment to the petitioners as honorary doctors, there was no mention or condition that they would cease to be Medical Officers on completing the age of 58 years. When there is no such condition, the respondent Corporation cannot take any action in arbitrary and capricious manner retiring the petitioners on completion of 58 years. While giving appointment to the petitioners as honorary doctors, there was no mention or condition that they would cease to be Medical Officers on completing the age of 58 years. When there is no such condition, the respondent Corporation cannot take any action in arbitrary and capricious manner retiring the petitioners on completion of 58 years. The Honorary Part Time Medical Officers working in the respondent Corporation have been considered as workman and, therefore, the petitioners are also covered by the definition of workman under the Industrial Dispute Act and hence, proper procedure in accordance with the provisions contained in the I. D. Act is required to be followed which has not been done in case of the petitioners and hence, the decision taken by the respondent Corporation deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) MR. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that a decision was taken by the Chief Labour Officer in consultation with the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation to implement the superannuation age of 58 years in respect of Honorary Part Time Medical Officers working in the penal of the Corporation. Rules regarding age limit would apply to the Honorary part time Medical Officers. However, the present petitioners were allowed to continue beyond the age of superannuation limit of 58 years. The decision was already taken on 22. 04. 1992 whereby the age limit of 58 years was introduced in respect of Part Time Employees of the Corporation. Because of administrative inadvertence, though the petitioners were required to be superannuated long back, they were continued on the penal of doctors. The mistake committed by the Corporation was sought to be rectified and hence, mere continuance on the post of honorary Part-Time Medical Officer beyond the superannuation age of 58 years will not create any right in favour of the petitioners. It is a settled proposition of law that a Provision for mandatory age of superannuation or specification of age beyond which an incumbent/employee must cease to hold office is vital and essential and the same is prevalent in almost all countries of the world. It is a settled proposition of law that a Provision for mandatory age of superannuation or specification of age beyond which an incumbent/employee must cease to hold office is vital and essential and the same is prevalent in almost all countries of the world. If the age of superannuation is applicable to all other employees, the petitioners cannot claim any privilege from the applicability of that provision and hence, after the age of superannuation, if the petitioners were asked not to continue their service as Part Time Medical Officers, the Corporation has not done anything wrong or the action cannot be treated as something contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence, all the petitions deserves to be dismissed with cost. ( 6 ) WHILE challenging the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Rawal has submitted that for superannuating Honorary Part Time Medical Officers on completion of 58 years, no notice is required, more particularly, when most of the petitioners have completed 65 to 70 years of age. Mr. Rawal has submitted that by granting interim relief, the learned Single Judge has finally allowed the petitions. It is settled proposition of law that mandatory interim orders which would amount to finally allowing the petitions should not be passed. The policy of the Corporation to retire the employee at the age of 58 years cannot be considered as illegal, arbitrary or unreasonable and hence, the scope of interference in such policy matters by the Court while exercising the powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited as per catena of judgments delivered by this Court as well as Honble Supreme Court of India. ( 7 ) MR. Rawal has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of ARUN MILLS LIMITED V/s. DR. CHANDRAPRASAD C. TRIVEDI, 17 G. L. R. 291 wherein it is held that "if a person is employed in an industry to discharge his duties as a medical man, he would be a person doing a technical work for the said industry and he would squarely fall within the definition of the word "workman" given in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and he would therefore, be entitled to bonus as may be declared by the Company. " If the doctors are to be treated as workman under the I. D. Act for the purpose of getting benefits such as Bonus, D. A. etc. on the same analogy, the Doctor can also be treated as workman for the purpose of determining the date of retirement and if the date of retirement is 58 years in all other cases, same would equally apply to the doctors and hence, on completion of the retirement age, the doctors have no legal right to continue on the said post and no notice is required to discharge them from service. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief claimed in the petition and petitions are therefore, required to be dismissed and the present Letters Patent Appeals filed against the interim order of the learned Single Judge are required to be allowed. ( 8 ) AFTER having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after having gone through the memo of petitions and Letter Patent Appeals and after having perused the documents attached therewith and after having considered the statutory provisions and also the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order while admitting the petitions and granting mandatory directions to the Corporation, we are of the view that a person who has attained the superannuation age has no legal or statutory right to continue in the organisation or establishment and if he is allowed to work after the superannuation age, either on honorary basis or otherwise, no notice is required for putting an end to the said arrangement. Simply because the petitioners were allowed to work as honorary doctors in the respondent Corporation after the age of 58 years being the superannuation age, that has not conferred any legal or vested right in them to continue at that post for indefinite period. Simply because the petitioners were allowed to work as honorary doctors in the respondent Corporation after the age of 58 years being the superannuation age, that has not conferred any legal or vested right in them to continue at that post for indefinite period. It is left with the discretion of the respondent Corporation as to how much period a particular doctor is allowed to work as an honorary doctor and if by virtue of any policy decision taken by the respondent Corporation, the honorary doctors are directed not to render their services as honorary doctors to the Corporation, after they attained the age of superannuation, which is fixed by the Corporation in cases of all other employees, there is no justification in the grievance raised by the petitioners that they have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice or without issuance of any notice to them in this regard. ( 9 ) THE petitioners claim is not justified even on the ground that they are to be treated as workman within the definition contained in section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act and hence, provisions contained in the I. D. Act are applicable to them and hence, the impugned action of the respondent Corporation is in violation of the statutory Provisions contained in I. D. Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same has to be quashed and set aside by this Court. ( 10 ) IT appears to the Court that there is a basic falacy in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners as assuming that the petitioners are to be considered to be workman, the superannuation age which is applicable to all other workman would equally apply to the petitioners. The superannuation age in case of all other workman is 58 years. No sooner they attain the age of 58 years, they cease to be the workman and for termination of employer - employee relationship on attainment of the age of superannuation, no notice is required. Likewise, in the case of the petitioners doctors who are considered to be workman, are no longer workman as soon as they attain the age of superannuation and honorary services rendered by them, thereafter, would stand altogether on a different footing and that was as per the mutual convenience of either of the parties. Likewise, in the case of the petitioners doctors who are considered to be workman, are no longer workman as soon as they attain the age of superannuation and honorary services rendered by them, thereafter, would stand altogether on a different footing and that was as per the mutual convenience of either of the parties. If one of the parties wants to bring an end to the said arrangement, no legal or statutory notice is required. Even there was no contractual agreement to that effect between the petitioners - doctors and the respondent Corporation. Circulars dated 30. 04. 1981 and 20. 04. 1987 issued by the Corporation and relied upon by Mr. Trivedi for the purpose of giving one months notice would not be of much assistance to the petitioners, as those provisions contained therein are applicable during the subsistence of employer - employee relationship and after the attainment of superannuation age, the same can not be pressed into service. We are, therefore, not in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge stating that when a doctor who has crossed the age of 65 years is allowed to continue for such a long time (nearly 7 years) beyond so-called superannuation age limit of 58 years, there was no reason for the respondent Corporation to act in such a haste and sent them home without even a notice or a reasonable time. When such notice is not contemplated either under any statute or under any Contract, nor even principles of natural justice requires to issue such notice in the case of a workman attaining the age of superannuation and ceasing to be a workman thereafter, there is no justification to interfere in the policy decision taken by the respondent Corporation only on the ground that the decision seems to be a hasty one and no notice of reasonable time was issued. ( 11 ) IT appears to us on the basis of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the monetary aspect was not much weighed with them. However, their main grievance was against the manner and method in which they have been asked to stop rendering honorary services to the respondent Corporation abruptly and without expressing any sense of gratitude for the services so rendered by them. In this connection, Mr. However, their main grievance was against the manner and method in which they have been asked to stop rendering honorary services to the respondent Corporation abruptly and without expressing any sense of gratitude for the services so rendered by them. In this connection, Mr. Rawal, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation has rightly drawn our attention to the letter dated 05. 09. 2003 written by the Corporation to Dr. P. C. Nayak and Dr. Narenbhai Shah two of the petitioners, wherein it was candidly clarified that there was no intention on the part of the Corporation to cause any injury to the reputation of the petitioners - doctors. It was also clarified that the Corporation has taken the said decision long back after obtaining legal guidance and the opinion of the Advocate General and some time was elapsed in implementing the said decision and as a part of implementation of the said decision, the action was taken by the Corporation on 05. 08. 2003 relieving the petitioners - doctors from the honorary services rendered by them to the Corporation. The Corporation has also expressed sorry for causing hurt to the feelings of petitioners. It was also clarified in the said letter that in place of the honorary doctors who have completed 58 years and were asked to retire, the process for appointing new honorary doctors was already started and hence, the question of reconsideration of the decision taken by the Corporation would not arise. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING over all view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no merit or substance in any of these petitions i. e. S. C. A. Nos. 16329 and 17606 to 17612 of 2003 and hence, all these petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the petitions. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) SINCE all these petitions are dismissed, the Letters Patent Appeals do not survive and they are accordingly disposed of. Notice discharged in each of the Letters Patent Appeals without any order as to costs. ( 14 ) SINCE all these Letters Patent Appeals do not survive, there shall be no order in Civil Application Nos. 47 to 54 of 2004 and are accordingly disposed of. ( 15 ) UPON pronouncement of the judgment today, the learned advocate Mr. Notice discharged in each of the Letters Patent Appeals without any order as to costs. ( 14 ) SINCE all these Letters Patent Appeals do not survive, there shall be no order in Civil Application Nos. 47 to 54 of 2004 and are accordingly disposed of. ( 15 ) UPON pronouncement of the judgment today, the learned advocate Mr. C. N. Trivedi for the original petitioners requests for continuance of the status-quo, so as to facilitate the parties to avail further remedy to challenge this common judgment. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Rawal for the G. S. R. T. C. has strongly opposed the request. After having heard them and considering the entire factual profile and our conclusions, we are extremely unable to accede to the request of learned advocate Mr. Trivedi. Request is, therefore, rejected. .w