Petitioner-workman challenged an Award fixing his retirement age based on a corrected date of birth. The High Court held he admitted the correction, the management acted within rights, and the Standing Order precludes future questioning, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner's writ petition for setting aside the Labour Court Award is dismissed.
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.
W.P.(L) No.938 of 2010
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Surendra Ghatwar ... Petitioner Versus The Management of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant, Represented though its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. … Respondent
---For the petitioner : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Piyush Chitransh, Advocate
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---- J U D G M E N T
By Court:
Heard counsel for the parties.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the Award dated 24.11.2008 passed in Reference Case No.12 of 2006 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City whereby reference has been answered against the workman-petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner-workman was appointed to the post of Khalasi vide order of appointment dated 02.02.1973 and accordingly, he joined on the said post on 24.03.1973. At the time of appointment, his age has been recorded as 19 years. As per the petitioner, this date of birth was being accepted by the Company which is evident from the housing loan, but subsequently, date of birth has been changed by overwriting in the year 2004 and it has been written as 28 years. On the said basis, retirement notice has been given on 14.01.2005, indicating the date of superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2005.
On receiving above notice, industrial dispute has been raised, which has been referred as Reference Case No.12 of 2006. The terms of reference is as follows:
“Whether forced retirement before time of Sri Surendra Ghatwar DesignationOperator, Ispat Melthing Chamber, Staff No. 248444, Bokaro Steel Plant by the management through over-writing in his date of birth is justified? If not what relief workman is entitled to?”
Learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, has answered the reference vide order dated 24.11.2008 against the workman-petitioner, treating his age, at the time of appointment as 28 years.
Para -20, 24, 26 and 31 of the Award is quoted herein below:
During cross-examination he admitted that age written by the workman on P.D. Form remained the same from 1973 to 2004 before he made correction. He also stated and admitted that he had not taken order from his superior officer before making correction in the age of the workman on Ext.M-3. He also stated that the age of workman at the time of Interview was not assessed by the Medical Board.
Thus from the scrutinizing the evidence of the M.W.2 I find that he had fully supported the case of the management that the age of the workman was changed on 05.12.2004 after noticing certain discrepancies in his P.D. Form and which also bears the signature of the workman on the cutting.
“The age of a workman as recorded with the company at the time of his employment shall not, therafter, be questioned by him.”
Thus from going through the provision of Clause 8(b)(ii) it is evident that the age recorded by the workman at the time of his joining will be final.
However during the evidence of M.W. 1 and M.W.2 the management has taken the stand that the management has got corrected the date of birth of the workman on 9.12.2004 which was authenticated by M.W.1 Sri B.M. Bakshi Manager (Personnel). M.W.1 has admitted during his cross- examination at para-9 that the age of the workman was corrected in P.D.Form (Ext. M-3) on 9.12.2004 but no correction was done in his Attestation Form and M.W. 2 Vishwa Mohan Bakshi has himself stated in para-5 of his examination- in – chief that the age of the workman was changed in Ext. M-3 in the year 2004 in his presence and he as well as the workman have put their signature and this changed was done when he found discrepancies in his age. Even during his cross- examination at para-6 of his evidence he admitted that the age declared by workman in P.D.Form remained from 1973 till 2004. The stand of the
management on the written statement filed by them is not appreciated by this court.
From perusal of the award and evidence, it is evident that the correction has been made in the year 2004 which has been signed by one of the representatives of the Management as well as petitioner-workman. This corrected date of birth has been admitted by the petitioner-workman in his cross- examination before the Labour Court.
Considering the above facts, this Court finds that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City vide order dated 24.11.2008 passed in Reference Case No.12 of 2006.
Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi The 19th day of August, 2019 Ravi/NAFR/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under Article 226 for setting aside the Labour Court Award determining the workman's age for retirement is sustainable.
Whether there is perversity in the Labour Court's finding that the workman signed and admitted to the correction of his date of birth.
Whether Clause 8(b)(ii) of the Certified Standing Order bars the workman from questioning the age recorded at the time of employment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Ghatwar
The Management of M/s Bokaro Steel Plant
Rajesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
