Judgment :- T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.10611 of 2010. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of declaration to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct the Information Sharing Meeting/Wage Revision Meeting without calling the appellant Association, to be held 14.05.2010 or on any other subsequent date and the first respondent effecting publication in official gazette as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 17 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to conduct such meeting by inviting the appellant Association. 2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant is a registered Association and they claim to represent the interest of about 28,000 employees in the respondent corporation, who belong to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe community and that the corporation calls the appellant Association for liaison meeting once in three months for redressing the grievances of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe employees and at present the liaison meeting is being conducted every six months. In the respondent Corporation wage negotiation talks are being held and such decision taken in the talks are forwarded to the first respondent for notification. For discussing wage related issues, the respondent corporation introduced the procedure of calling for Information Sharing Meeting. The grievance of the appellant is that their association is not called for such Information Sharing Meeting. That a member of the association made a request under the Right to Information Act, regarding such Information Sharing Meeting and reply was received stating that there are no guidelines issued the Central Government in respect of eligibility criteria regarding Information Sharing Sessions. That from the information furnished under the RTI Act, it is clear that the respondent calls for 10 Unions/Association for Information Sharing Meeting without any valid criteria. All the Unions/Associations including the appellant Association called for a strike on 31.03.2010, since, wage revision was long over due. Subsequently, based on assurance given by the respondent Corporation, stating that Information Sharing Meeting to discuss wage revision will be called at the earliest most of the Unions/Associations except the appellant withdrew the strike call. The appellant submitted a representation on 08.05.2010 to invite them for Information Sharing Meeting with regard to wage revision. Subsequently, based on assurance given by the respondent Corporation, stating that Information Sharing Meeting to discuss wage revision will be called at the earliest most of the Unions/Associations except the appellant withdrew the strike call. The appellant submitted a representation on 08.05.2010 to invite them for Information Sharing Meeting with regard to wage revision. Thereafter, the respondent corporation called upon the appellant withdraw the strike notice with a promise that the appellant would be called for the Information Sharing Meeting and it is based on such assurance, the appellant withdrew the strike notice. However, since the respondent Corporation proposed to hold the Information Sharing Meeting without calling the appellant, the writ petition came to be filed. 3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit contending that the Trade Unions/Officers Associations are being invited for Information Sharing Meeting whenever wage revision falls due; wages are revised by LIC once in five year and the present wage revision is due since August 2007. In terms Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 1956, the Central Government has power to make rules for regulating the terms and conditions of the service of the employees that the Government of India make rules and regulations and issues circulars and guidelines periodically regarding specific issues. One such guideline dated 23.10.1989, issued by the Government of India advising to conduct meeting with SC/ST Welfare Associations to sort out matters relating to reservations and no policy matters or service conditions of the employees to be discussed with such association as it is normally discussed with Trade Unions and that the appellant is not a Trade Union and they have no right to attend the Information Sharing Meeting relating to the wage revision or other service conditions. The members of the appellant Association may also be a member of other Trade Unions/Officers Associations. As there is no recognized Union in the respondent corporation, all the Trade Unions are invited for discussion and as the appellant not the Trade Union, they have not been invited and in terms of guidelines issued by the Government of India, the appellant Association need not be invited in respect of talks regarding wage revision. As regards the other issues relating to reservation matters periodical quarterly meeting are being conducted. As regards the other issues relating to reservation matters periodical quarterly meeting are being conducted. Further, most of the employees of the corporation are represented by one or other Unions/Associations and by not calling the appellant Association for the Information Sharing Meeting is not to deprive them of their right in decision making process, but for the reasons stated above. 4. The appellant filed a reply affidavit to the counter stating that the members of the appellant Association belong to all categories from Class IV to Class I up to the highest cadre of Executive Director and as far as the Officer cadre are concerned, the Officers Associations which is not a Trade Union has been invited to attend the meeting and to bar the appellant Association is unreasonable. It is further contended that merely because the SC/ST employees are members of the other Trade Unions and therefore need not be called for a Information Sharing Meeting is without any basis. Further, that even after the Industrial Disputes Act, even an Union not registered under the Trade Union Act can raise a dispute and the reason assigned by the respondent corporation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The respondents 2 and 3 had filed an additional counter affidavit contending that the appellant Association is not registered under the Societies Registration Act, but under the Mumbai Public Trust Act and merely because, the President of the appellant Association is posted at the Channai office of LIC, it does not confer jurisdiction on this Court. Further, every Information Sharing Meeting regarding wage negotiation has been going on from 2007 has been held at the Central Office at Mumbai and therefore, the writ petition before this Court cannot be entertained. That, there are 10 Unions/Associations and the Federation of Class-I Officers Association represents the Class-I Officers of the Corporation, who are not workmen so as to form a Trade Union and it is not a caste based Association. The second respondent as a matter of good and established Labour principle, does not discuss wage related matters with caste based associations and caste issues are negotiated with caste based associations as per the 1989 guidelines and therefore, the appellant Association not being a Registered Trade Union cannot insist that they should be called for the meeting. 6. The second respondent as a matter of good and established Labour principle, does not discuss wage related matters with caste based associations and caste issues are negotiated with caste based associations as per the 1989 guidelines and therefore, the appellant Association not being a Registered Trade Union cannot insist that they should be called for the meeting. 6. A reply affidavit was filed by the appellant Association to the additional counter affidavit contending that many of the members of the Association are within the jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition is maintainable. The Information Sharing Meeting is not only in respect of wage revision, but also in respect of other service conditions and that is why they have registered themselves as an Association. There is no legal bar in calling a community based Association for information sharing meeting. 7. The writ petition was heard and the learned Judge by order dated 16.07.2010, dismissed the writ petition, holding that refusal of the respondent corporation to invite the appellant Association for talks cannot be held to be discriminatory. Aggrieved by such order, the present appeal has been filed. 8. When the writ appeal came up for admission on 19.07.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation took notice, since it was represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the meeting was scheduled on 19.07.2010, this Court passed an interim order on 19.07.2010 to the effect that the decision taken in the Information Sharing Meeting /Wage Revision Meeting shall not be notified. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant after setting out the facts would contend that the service conditions of all the employees are common and therefore, there is no justification for the respondent corporation to exclude the appellant in the Information Sharing Meeting. The appellant represents 28,000 employees and they are shut out from participating in the meeting in which their service conditions are being discussed. As per the information furnished by the respondent corporation in a query raised under the RTI Act, it has been admitted that there is no classification, in the absence of any classification, there is no justification for excluding the appellant Association. Class I Officer Association is not a Trade Union yet they have been invited for discussion, which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 . Class I Officer Association is not a Trade Union yet they have been invited for discussion, which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 . That the strike call given by the appellant Association was withdrawn, since the respondent corporation assured that the appellant Association would be invited to attend the meeting. The circular relied on by the respondent corporation issued by the Government of India, dated 23.10.1989, does not deal with the Information Sharing Meeting and therefore the contention of the respondent corporation is without any basis. By relying upon the information given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, dated 25.02.2010, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is no practice in vogue in the respondent corporation and even if such practice is there, it should be in conformity with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel by relying upon the letter dated 29.03.2010, written by the appellant to the Managing Director of LIC would contend that there was an assurance that the appellant would be called for the meeting and based on which the strike call was withdrawn. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. International Trading Company, (2003) 5 SCC 437 , in support of his contention. 10. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent corporation would contend that under Section 48 of the Act, the Central Government may by notification make rules for the purposes of the Act in terms of Section 48(2)(cc), the Central Government is empowered to make rules relating to terms and conditions of service employees and agents of the corporation including those who became employees and agents of corporation on the appointed day under the Act. Therefore, the power vests with the Central Government and all that is done in the meeting is to gather information, which is shared and forwarded to the Central Government. Further under Section 48(2) (A), the regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, with regard to terms and conditions of service of employees shall be deemed to be made under clause (cc) of sub-section (2) and shall, subject to other provisions of Section 48. Further under Section 48(2) (A), the regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, with regard to terms and conditions of service of employees shall be deemed to be made under clause (cc) of sub-section (2) and shall, subject to other provisions of Section 48. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Advocate General that the matter rests with the Central Government for the purpose of notification. Further, it is contended that the appellant Association is a community based Association and every employee, who belongs to the community can become a member of the Association and the membership is not confined to any particular cadre of employees. The Trade Unions, which are invited for the meeting are cadre based, since issues relating to wage revision are discussed such Unions are invited. In respect of Class-I Officers, since, they are not workmen and cannot form a Trade Union their Association has been invited for the meeting. Therefore, when the Information Sharing Meeting is cadre based, the appellant cannot insist upon the respondent corporation to invite the appellant Association, which is the community based association. By relying upon the circular issued by the Government of India, dated 23.10.1989, it is submitted that the SC/ST Welfare Association is called for meetings to sort out matters relating to reservation for SCs/STs only and no policy matters or service conditions of the employees. That the respondent Corporation is bound by the circular issued by the Government of India and therefore they cannot be faulted for not calling the appellant Association. 11. The learned Judge, who heard the writ petition rejected the contention raised by the respondents as regards the jurisdiction point raised by the respondent Corporation and held that notices at Zonal level can be served only upon the office bearers and therefore, it cannot totally rule out the possibility of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court, while deciding the right of the appellant. The learned Judge concluded that the right of the appellant to participate in the Information Sharing Session is not borne out of statute nor out of custom and it is a right that they seeks to establish only under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the respondent corporation seeks to deprive the appellant based on classification and the classification is Trade Unions and Federation of Trade Unions on one hand and association on the other. The learned Judge found that in the absence of any specific rule framed under Section 48 (2), there is nothing wrong in the corporation by drawing a analogy from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Acts and inviting only the Trade Unions and Federations of Trade Unions. Based on the above reasons, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. Admittedly, there is no rule or regulation prescribing the manner and method in which such Information Sharing Meeting are to be conducted. In terms of Section 48 (2) of the Act, it is the Central Government, which is competent to frame rule regarding the terms and conditions of the service of employees of the corporation. In the absence of any statutory rule all that is required to be seen is as to whether there is any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the action of the respondent corporation in not inviting the appellant Association for the Information Sharing Meeting. To examine, as to whether the reason assigned satisfies the test under the Article of 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary to examine the stand taken by the respondent corporation refusing invitation to the appellant. The Government of India by circular dated 23.10.1989, address to the Chief Executives of all the Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions framed certain guidelines regarding holding of quarterly meeting with the representatives of SC/ST employees. Certain guidelines were issued in the said circular of which the following would be relevant:- "(iii) The agenda will be limited to the matters relating to reservations for SCs and STs only and no policy matters or service conditions of the employees, which are normally negotiated with Trade Union, would be discussed." 14. Certain guidelines were issued in the said circular of which the following would be relevant:- "(iii) The agenda will be limited to the matters relating to reservations for SCs and STs only and no policy matters or service conditions of the employees, which are normally negotiated with Trade Union, would be discussed." 14. On perusal of the above guidelines, it is seen that the Government of India has specifically stated that the agenda of such quarterly meeting shall be limited to matters relating to reservation for SCs/STs only. Further, there is an embargo to discuss on policy matters or service conditions of employees as they are normally negotiated with Trade Unions. This circular thus indicates the purpose for which the quarterly meetings are held with the community based association. The terms of the circular are unambiguous and makes it clear that policy matters and service conditions of employees could be negotiated with Trade Unions. Admittedly, the appellant is an association stated to have been registered under the Mumbai Public Trust Act with registered office at Mumbai and it is not a Trade Union. It is stated that all persons belonging to SC/ST community are entitled to become members of the appellant association and their membership ranges from Class-IV employees to Class I employees up to the cadre of Executive Director. Therefore, in the light of the embargo placed in the circular issued by the Government of India, the appellant Association cannot as a matter of right insist upon being called for the Information Sharing Meeting, which is essentially a meeting relating to wage structure of the employees. The other explanation given by the respondent corporation for refusing invitation to the appellant is by stating that the Information Sharing Meeting is cadre based and every member of the appellant association could be a member of the Trade Union or in the Class-I Officers Association, which are effectively represented in such meetings. Thus, the two grounds put forth by the respondent corporation does not smack of any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. On the other hand, it appears to be a reasonable classification and there is sound reasoning to justify the basis of the classification. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the classification adopted by the respondent corporation is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it appears to be a reasonable classification and there is sound reasoning to justify the basis of the classification. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the classification adopted by the respondent corporation is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As we have held that the action of the respondent corporation are not arbitrary or unreasonable, but based on reasonable classification, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India, referred supra, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not in any manner advance the case of the appellant. 15. Further, much was said about the Class-I Officers Association, which was invited for the Information Sharing Meeting despite the Association not being a Trade Union. The explanation is that the members of the Class-I Officers Association are not workmen and therefore, they cannot form a Trade Union and to have representation of the Class-I Officers, the said Association is also called for, for the Information Sharing Meeting. Thus, it cannot be stated that because the Class-I Officers Association is invited and that it is not a Trade Union, it is discriminatory. We are convinced with the reason assigned for inviting the Officers Association for such meeting. In fact, if such Class I Officers are not represented in such meeting, one section of employee go unrepresented and that would be unfair and unreasonable. 16. Hence, for the above reasons, we find that there is no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.