Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1289 (PNJ)

Amar Chand v. State of Haryana

2005-12-15

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, S.N.AGGARWAL

body2005
JUDGMENT S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. The petitioner was employed by the respondent/management as a Beldar in the year 1975. His services were terminated on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.12.1994 by an order dated 4.11.1994. The petitioner issued demand notice on 7.1.1996 in which he claimed his date of birth as 1.9.1946 and pleaded that he had not attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1994. Conciliation proceedings failed and the matter was referred by the appropriate Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hisar (in short Labour Court). The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 7.1.2005 (Annexure P-15) reached the conclusion that as per evidence produced before him, the petitioner had attained the age of 58 years as on 31.12.1994 and, therefore, the termination of the services of the petitioner was held as legal and valid. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that as per the identity card dated 28.10.1994 (Annexure P-5) the petitioner was 49 years of age as on 1.1.1994. Ration card (Annexure P-6/T) dated 15.2.1999 discloses the age of petitioner as 53 years as on 15.2.1999. He had also produced certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon dated 21.11.1995 (Annexure P-4) before the Labour Court according to which his age was 50 years as on 21.11.1995. It was submitted that the document was not taken into consideration by the Labour Court while assessing the age of the petitioner. 3. We have perused the award in the context of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. These documents have also been considered. 4. So far as medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar dated 21.11.1995 is concerned, it was not an exhibited document. Neither any official of Civil Surgeon was produced nor the doctor who had medically examined the petitioner and had recorded his age to be 50 years as on 21.11.1995 has been examined. Therefore, the medical certificate dated 21.11.1995 produced by the petitioner was of no evidentiary value. The other two documents namely ration card Annexure P-6/T and the identity card Annexure P-5 were not produced before the Labour Court. Moreover, the petitioner has not placed any reliable document on the file vide which the date of birth was communicated by him to the Food & Supplies Department while getting the ration card prepared or to the Election Department before getting prepared his identity card. Moreover, the petitioner has not placed any reliable document on the file vide which the date of birth was communicated by him to the Food & Supplies Department while getting the ration card prepared or to the Election Department before getting prepared his identity card. It appears that both these documents have been got prepared by the petitioner by giving his age by imagination and that after his age was already determined by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar on 9.12.1992 to be 56 years. 5. Otherwise, the management has examined two witnesses namely Tilak Raj MW-1 and Rajinder Singh Chahal as MW-2. Both have proved that 58 officials were got medically examined by the respondent/management from Civil Surgeon, Hisar on 9.12.1992 for determining their age as proof regarding their age was not available in the official record. The age of workers was got assessed medically by the respondent/management and on that day Amar Chand petitioner was found to be 56 years of age by the Civil Surgeon, Hisar. The said report has been proved as Annexure P-7. Therefore, as per the said medical report dated 9.12.1992,the petitioner was 56 years of age at that time. He was, therefore, relieved on 31.12.1994 on his reaching the age of superannuation being 58 years on the basis of said medical report dated 9.12.1992. 6. It is not that the petitioner alone was got medically examined on the same day or if his services were terminated on the same day. The petitioner was got medically examined on 9.12.1992 and the order of his retirement was passed on 4.11.1994 (Annexure P-4) which was made effective from 31.12.1994. 7. Moreover, as stated above, he alone was not got medically examined. Many other employees were got medically examined who had no proof of their age in the official record. Therefore, it is not a case of mala fide or of discrimination. 8. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Labour Court on 7.1.2005 by which the order of termination of the petitioner was upheld having been passed by the respondent/management on attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner. No ground to interfere. 9. Dismissed.