Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1096 (JHR)

Ram Naumi Singh v. Union Of India

2002-10-04

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 Dhanbad in 11 of 1991, whereby he has answered the reference against the petitioner-workman. 2. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. "I. Whether the action of the Management of West Bokaro Colliery of M/s. TISCO Ltd. P.O. Ghatotand Dist. Hazaribagh in not accepting the date of birth of Ram Naumi Singh, Telephone Exchange Operator (underground) as 10.10.1938 is justified. II. If not to what relief the workman concerned is Entitled ?" 3. The concerned workman was in service of the respondent-West Bokaro Colliery of M/s. TISCO Ltd. His case is that in the school register the date of birth was recorded as 10.10.1938 but in Form B register the management had erroneously recorded his date of birth as 1.1.1932, The case of the concerned workman was that he had read up to matriculation at Oman High School at Teghra in Begusarai district failed in the final examination in 1995. In 1980 the management invited objection about discrepancy in date of birth and the workman responded by applying for correction of his date of birth and submitted his school leaving certificate. The said request was denied by the management. Further case of the workman is that his original certificate had been lost and he obtained duplicate copies of the school leaving certificate, admit card and the marks-sheet of matriculation examination and again pressed his claim which was refused in 1989. Thereafter the dispute was raised and the reference was made. 4. The case of the management is that the concerned workman after his appointment on 5.8.1957 had declared his date of birth as 1.7.1932 which was entered in Form B register of the colliery as well as in the service card maintained by the management and the workman also signed the service card and Form B register in token of his aforesaid declaration. It is contended that in 1977 the management issued circular enabling the workman to represent about the date of birth, but no such representation was filed by the concerned workman. It is contended that in 1977 the management issued circular enabling the workman to represent about the date of birth, but no such representation was filed by the concerned workman. Again similar circular was issued in the year 1980 to which the workman filed his representation. One age correction committee comprising of the representatives of the management and the recognized Union was constituted to consider those applications. The age correction committee after considering the case of the petitioner did not recommend for correction of the age and the decision was intimated to the workman. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the reference before the Tribunal the concerned workman had reached his age of superannuation in accordance with his date of birth as recorded in Form B register. However, the Tribunal after considering, in detail, the evidence both oral and documentary, adduced by the management and the concerned workman, came to the conclusion that the age correction committee should have referred the case of the concerned workman to the Medical Board for ascertaining the age. The Tribunal therefore passed the Award on 27.4.1995 directing the Management to constitute Medical Board, for assessment of age of the concerned workman and if it is found that the concerned workman should have been superannuated with effect from 1.7.1992, the management shall pay him all the back wages. 6. I have heard Mr. B.B. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-workman and Mr. B.P. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Management. 7. From persual of the writ petition, it appears that pursuant to the award passed by the Tribunal the management issued direction for appearance of the workman before the Medical Board at Central Hospital, West Bokaro. Since the workman was not available, another date was fixed for his examination. It is admitted by the workman that he appeared before the Medical Board on the appointed date and time and he was examined by the Medical Board consisting of the following persons, namely : (i) Mr. Srivastava-Chief Medical Officer (Physician), (if) Dr. Gupta-ENT Department, (iii) Dr. Sahu-Surgeon for X-ray and (iv) Dr. Sharma-Dentist. After his examination the age of the petitioner was assessed as 65 years on the date of examination i.e. 28.6.1995. Admittedly, the petitioner was superannuated from the service after he was allowed one year extension. Srivastava-Chief Medical Officer (Physician), (if) Dr. Gupta-ENT Department, (iii) Dr. Sahu-Surgeon for X-ray and (iv) Dr. Sharma-Dentist. After his examination the age of the petitioner was assessed as 65 years on the date of examination i.e. 28.6.1995. Admittedly, the petitioner was superannuated from the service after he was allowed one year extension. According to the Medical Board report his date of birth should have been 28.6.1930 but on the basis of date of birth entered in Form B register which was duly signed by the concerned workman he was superannuated not only after attaining the age of superannuation but after availing extension of service for one year. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the opinion that the Award was rightly passed by the Tribunal and it has been implemented. I do not find any reason to interfere with the report of the Medical Board regarding assessment of the age of the concerned workman. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.