Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Chhatra Pal

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is preferred assailing the Award/Order dated 22.5.2013, passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon in Case No. LL02 of 2011 (Shri Chhatra Pal v. Managing Director, the Bazpur Cooperative Factory Ltd.) whereby the Sugar Company was directed to correct the date of birth of the workman as 12.6.1956 instead of 1.11.1950 and to do the consequential needful.

Undisputedly, workman was appointed on 15.11.1978. In entire service record as well as Provident Fund record his date of birth is mentioned as 1.11.1950; workman during his service never objected or applied for correction of date of birth instead of 1.11.1950 as 11.6.1956; on attaining the age of superannuation, treating his date of birth as 1.11.1950, workman was retired on 31.10.2010. Thereafter, workman moved before the Labour Court saying that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in service records as 1.11.1950, while as per his School Leaving Certificate his correct date of birth is 12.6.1956, which should be corrected in the service record and he should be reinstated and should be paid salary treating him in service.

Having accepted the contention of the workman, learned Deputy Labour Commissioner was pleased to pass impugned award. Feeling aggrieved, employer Sugar Company has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

As per Clause LL 3 (a) of the Standing Order dated 26th July, 1989, Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, if workman has placed reliance on School Leaving Certificate for the purpose of correction of his date of birth, that School Leaving Certificate must be authenticated by the District Inspector of the School or District Education Officer, as the case may be. Such authenticated certificate was never produced by the workman before the employer prior to his retirement.

Not only this, as per Clause 3 (iv) of Clause LL of the Standing Order, provision regarding modification of the age shall lapse on expiry of one year from the date of enforcement of these Standing Orders.

Undisputedly, Standing Order was issued on 26th July. Therefore, modification of date of birth could have been applied within one year that is prior to 25th July, 1990. Admittedly, workman has not applied for correction of date of birth within one year.

There is another aspect of the matter. As per the Standing Order, for the purpose of calculation of the age of superannuation, date of birth recorded in the Provident Fund record shall be deemed to be conclusive and final. Since date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the provident fund record as 1.11.1950, therefore, it was correctly taken as the date of birth of the workman and he was allowed to retire on 31.10.2010 i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, , has held that the date of birth of an employee cannot be altered at the fag end of his service.

In the present case, date of birth was directed to be altered by the impugned award dated 22.5.2013, that too after the retirement of the workman, who stood retired on 31.10.2010. Therefore, alteration of the date of birth that too after the retirement on the basis of school leaving certificate of Class IV, seems to be totally unjustified and without jurisdiction.

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment/award is hereby quashed.