Bishamber Dayal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

sooperkanoon.com/703023

Subject	Labour and Industrial
Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Sep-17-2003
Case Number	CW 5986/2003
Judge	Mukul Mudgal, J.
Reported in	109(2003)DLT28; 2004(73)DRJ689
Acts	Constitution of India - Article 226
Appellant	Bishamber Dayal
Respondent	Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.
Advocates:	O.P. Bhatia, Adv
Disposition	Writ petition dismissed

Excerpt:

industrial disputes - retirement--evidence as to date of birth--workman himself to giving his year of birth in the pf nomination form as 1934--management entitled to retire him at the age of 60--school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 14-7-38 produced in 1995 after retirement in 1994 not a contemporaneous document to be relied upon--that apart the workman himself sought extension of service in july 1994 which was granted for 3 months--challenge to order of retirement as upheld by labour court not be entertained in writ petition--award of labour court calls for no interference--constitution of india, 1950, article 226. - .....by the workman in the year 1995 after his retirement; (b) that the workman himself in the provident fund nomination form has given the year of his birth as 1934. (c) consequently the management was entitled to retire him at the age of 60. the award has also relied upon the fact that in july 1994, the workman himself sought extension of service which was granted for a period of three months which also shows that the petitioner's service came to an end even according to his own stand. 3. the reasoning of the labour court is sound as the certificate which is issued in 1995 after the retirement in 1994 is not a contemporaneous document and the petitioner/workman had himself signed his year of birth as 1934 in the provident fund nomination form and thus the petitioner cannot back out of the impact of his own document.4. in my view the above findings are thus unassailable under article 226 and accordingly there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the tribunal. the writ petition is, thereforee, dismissed in liming with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This writ petition challenges the impugned Award dated 13th December, 2002 rejecting the stand of the workman/petitioner herein that he had joined the management, respondent No.3 herein in the month of December, 1955 at the age of 18 years and there was no superannuation age in the company and many workmen worked up to the age of even 70 years. Since the petitioner was retired in the year 1994 upon the company's view that he had attained the age of sixty years, he challenged the retirement on the ground that his correct date of birth entitled him to work even up to the year 1998. He has further submitted that he had produced the school transfer certificate issued by the concerned school in the year 1995 after his retirement which shows his date of birth as 14th July, 1938, entitling him to continue at least up to the age of sixty years till 1998.

2. By the impugned Award dated 13th December, 2002, the Labour Court has found as under:

(a) That the school transfer certificate was produced by the workman in the year 1995 after his retirement;

(b) that the workman himself in the Provident Fund nomination form has given the year of his birth as 1934.

The award has also relied upon the fact that in July 1994, the workman himself sought extension of service which was granted for a period of three months which also shows that the petitioner's service came to an end even according to his own stand.

3. The reasoning of the labour court is sound as the certificate which is issued in 1995 after the retirement in 1994 is not a contemporaneous document and the petitioner/workman had himself signed his year of birth as 1934 in the provident fund nomination form and thus the petitioner cannot back out of the impact of his own document.

4. In my view the above findings are thus unassailable under Article 226 and accordingly there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, thereforee, dismissed in liming with no order as to costs.