A High Court bench held that a petitioner's writ petition challenging an award determining her retirement date based on official records was maintainable. The court found no infirmity in the award as official records showed no discrepancy in the recorded date of birth.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (L) No.4670 of 2010
Kaushalya Kamin …… Petitioner
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
For the Petitioner :Mr. Vijoy Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents :Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Adv. ----
07/Dated: 16/08/2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the Award dated 26.02.2009 passed in Reference No.290/2000 by CGIT-I, Dhanbad whereby reference has been answered against the workman.
It appears that the concerned workman, namely Smt. Kaushalaya Kamin was employee of the respondent-BCCL. She has been appointed in service on 31.01.1973. At the time of appointment her date of birth has been recorded as 15.09.1936 in statutory Form B maintained under the Mines Act. On the basis of said date of birth, she has retired from the service w.e.f. 15.09.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation.
After retirement, an industrial dispute has been raised in the year 2000 by taking plea that her date of birth has wrongly been recorded. There is no discrepancy in the official record maintained by the respondent-BCCL. All record suggests that her date of birth was 15.09.1936.
Reference may be made to the judgment reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, West Bengal Vrs. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors . Relevant paragraphs-18 and 19 are quoted hereinunder:
18. At this stage we may take note of certain instructions which were issued by the appellant laying down the procedure for determination/modification of date of birth of employee. The document is styled as: "Implementation Instruction No.76" "Procedure for Determination" "Verification of Age of Employees".
19. Its authenticity is not disputed by the parties. Indeed the respondent employee has filed this document as Annexure R-7 to the counter affidavit filed in this court. Under paragraph 'A' the manner of determination of age at the time of appointment is laid down. Under paragraph 'B' are laid down the procedures to be
followed in cases of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Under sub-paragraph (i) of Paragraph 'B' the case of the existing employee having a Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognised University or Board or Middle Form Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction should be treated as the correct date of birth provided the documents are issued by the University/Board prior to the date of the employment. Under subparagraph (i)(b) of paragraph B it is provided that mining sirdarship, wind up engine or similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both the documents mentioned in (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available the date of birth in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic. In clause (ii) of para B it is specifically stated that where ever there is no variation in records such cases will not be re-opened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management, after being satisfied on the merit of the case will take appropriate steps for corrections through the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. In 'C', 'D' and 'E' the procedures to be followed by the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for determination of age of an employee are laid down. The provisions read as follows:
"(C)Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B)(i)(a) or (B)(i)(b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, form B register, CMPF Record and Identify Cards (untempered) will be treated as final, provided that where there is a nomination in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of Age.
(D) Age determination of the age, Committee/Medical Board referred to above may consider their evidence available with the colliery management and/or
(E) Medical Board constituted for determination of Age will be required to manage the age in accordance with the requirement of Medical Jurisprudence and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the accurate age assessed and not approximately."
Thus, the provision is clear that if there is any discrepancy in the official record, then the matter requires consideration and reference can be made to the Medical Board for assessment of age.
I n the present case, there is no discrepancy in the official record.
In view of above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned Award dated 26.02.2009. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Shahid/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an industrial dispute award regarding the modification of date of birth was maintainable in view of the absence of discrepancy in official records.
Whether the impugned award dated 26.02.2009 passed in Reference No. 290/2000 by CGIT-I, Dhanbad was free from infirmity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, West Bengal Vrs. Shib Kumar Dushad & OrsReferred¶16
(2000) 8 SCC 696 · Who else cites this
Kaushalya Kamin
The Union of India
The Employers in relation to the Management of Block-II, Area of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited Dhanbad
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
