Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1137 (JHR)

Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court

2002-10-31

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. in this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 13.3.1995 passed by Labour Court, Jamshedpur, in Reference Case No. 6 of 1990, whereby he has allowed full back wages including, admissible allowance and other benefits to the respondent No. 2 the concerned workman from the date of the retirement till 11.8.1990. 2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The concerned workmen (respondent No. 2) joined the service of the petitioner-company. He retired from the service in 1987 after availing one years extension. After retirement, the workman raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. "Whether to retire Sri N.G. Ghosh, T. No. 71957 workman of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur from 13.9.1987 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled." 3. The case of the workman is that he joined service in 1947 at the age of 18 years and his date of birth is 11.8.1929 which is recorded in the school admission register. It is stated that at the time of his employment in the Management he disclosed his date of birth as 11.8.1929 but the management inadvertently noted his date of birth as 1.11.1923. The further case of the workman is that in 1972 he requested the management to rectify the date of birth and in reply thereof the workman was directed to produce the school leaving certificate. Thereafter, in 1980 the workman was informed that the school leaving certificate was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca who informed the management that the said certificate is not genuine. Despite the certificate of the headmaster produced by the management, the management did not take any action and superannuated him in 1987. 4. The case of the management on the other hand is that the workman was employed in 1947 and his date of birth was recorded as 24 years based on the assessment of his age by the Companys Medical Officer. The workman confirmed his age by putting his signature on the service record. It is stated that the workman did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his age and he for the first time disputed his age in 1972 by producing a transfer certificate issued from the Headmaster Navakumar High English School, Dacca. The workman confirmed his age by putting his signature on the service record. It is stated that the workman did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his age and he for the first time disputed his age in 1972 by producing a transfer certificate issued from the Headmaster Navakumar High English School, Dacca. The certificate was referred to the District Education Officer, Dacca for verification and it was found that the certificate was not genuine. The further case of the management is that the Age Rectification Committee in its Meeting held on 23.7.1984 decided to refer the case of the respondent No. 2 to Special Medical Board. Accordingly the workman was sent to the medical board for assessment of age and the Medical Board assessed the age of the workman as 58 years on 13.9.1984. The date of birth of the workman was accordingly rectified and the same was accepted by the workman. On the basis of the date of birth assessed by the medical board the workman was to superannuate on 13.9.1986. However, he was given one year extension of service and finally the workman was superannuated on 13.9.1987. After superannuation the workman illegally raised dispute with regard to his age and the same was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after considering the facts of the case and the evidence adduced before him erroneously came to the conclusion that the management has failed to prove that the date of birth of the workman is 13.9.1926 as recorded in the service card on the basis of which he was superannuated. The Labour Court further erroneously held that the correct date of birth of the workman is 11.8.1929 and he was entitled to continue in service till 11.8.1990. Consequently the Labour Court by the impugned award directed the management to pay full back wages together with interest to the workman from 13.9.1987 to 11.8.1990. 5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the Management assailed the impugned award as being illegal and perverse in law. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious error of law in so far as it failed to consider that the workman raised the dispute regarding his age after 25 years of his service and that too after retirement. Learned counsel further submitted that the transfer certificate produced by the workman was verified and not found genuine. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious error of law in so far as it failed to consider that the workman raised the dispute regarding his age after 25 years of his service and that too after retirement. Learned counsel further submitted that the transfer certificate produced by the workman was verified and not found genuine. In spite of that the petitioner was medically examined as per decision of the age rectification committee and the date of birth assessed by the medical board was again entered in the service record which was accepted by the workman. The Labour Court has also not appreciated the fact that in 1986 when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation he was given one years extension and the same was accepted by the workman without raising any objection. It is only after retirement the petitioner illegally and with mala fide intention raised the dispute with regard to his age. 6. From perusal of the impugned award the admitted facts that emerge are that the workman was taken in service in 1947. Since there was no documentary evidence the workman was examined by the medical board and his age was assessed. In 1960 a service card was issued by the management wherein the age of the workman was recorded as 24 years and the same was duly accepted by the workman by putting his signature. It is also admitted fact that in 1972 for the first time the workman produced a transfer certificate issued from the school and disputed his age. The said transfer certificate was sent to District Education Officer who informed the management that the transfer certificate was not genuine. It is also not disputed that after the age rectification committee took a decision the workman was examined by specially constituted medical board in 1984 and his age was assessed as 13.9.1926. Despite the fact that the management recorded the date of birth of the workman as 1926 but according to the age assessed by the medical board the service record was corrected and it was made 13.9.1926. In this way the service of the workman was increased by 2 years. The petitioner accepted the age assessed by the medical board in 1984 and according to the age so assessed by the Medical Board the workman was to superannuate in 1986 instead of 1984. In this way the service of the workman was increased by 2 years. The petitioner accepted the age assessed by the medical board in 1984 and according to the age so assessed by the Medical Board the workman was to superannuate in 1986 instead of 1984. In 1986 the workman was given one years extension is service and he accepted the said extension without raising any objection and retired on 13.9.1987. 7. The Labour Court has taken notice of the fact that the concerned workman was medically examined by the Medical Board specially constituted as per the decision of Age Rectification Committee and his date of birth was assessed and service record was accordingly corrected in 1994. But the Labour Court has ignored the said fact only for the reason that the medical officer of the Company was not examined. The Labour Court has also Ignored the fact that the concerned workman accepted the age so assessed by the Medical Board and instead of retiring in 1984, he was retied in 1986. The Labour Court also failed to appreciate the fact that in 1984 the workman was again medically examined and having been found fit one year extension of service was given. The Labour Court ignoring all these facts decided the issue on conjectures and surmises and erroneously determined the age of the workman. 8. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Anr., 1995 Suppl. Vol. 2 SCC 598, a similar question arose for consideration before the Supreme Court- The concerned workman of that case was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the Company and on the basis of the medical report the workman was permitted to work with the Management for another two years and on his attaining the age of 60 years he was retired from the service in June 1988. After retirement, the workmen, raised a dispute which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Medical Board constituted by the Management was not adequately equipped with scientific expertise and as such the age of the workman was not correctly determined. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed that the workman to be medically examined and his age be determined afresh. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Medical Board constituted by the Management was not adequately equipped with scientific expertise and as such the age of the workman was not correctly determined. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal directed that the workman to be medically examined and his age be determined afresh. The apex Court observed that after the workman was medically examined and he was allowed to continue in service for two years more, he did not challenge the opinion of the medical board at that stage. He raised the dispute only after retirement. The Supreme Court therefore held that the award passed by the Tribunal is wholly, illegal and unjustified. Exactly the similar facts are involved in the instant case. In 1984 after examination by the apex medical board the workmans age was assessed and he was allowed two years more service and was to superannuate in 1984. In 1984 also since the workman was medically fit he was given one year extension in service. At that stage, the workman did not challenge the opinion of the medical board. It is only after retirement a dispute was raised and the impugned award was passed. In my opinion, therefore, the award of the Tribunal can not be sustained in law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ application is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is set aside.