Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 138 (MP)

Rafiuddin v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

2006-01-24

R.K.GUPTA

body2006
ORDER 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Industrial Court, which is Annexure 'D' to the petition. This order has been passed by the State Industrial Court hearing the appeal submitted by the respondents against the order passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal on 14.9.1989. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that the petitioner entered into the services of the respondents as a Peon with effect from 25.11.1957. When the petitioner entered into the services of the respondents, his date of birth was recorded as 21.9.1925. The petitioner submitted an application in the year 1972 for correcting his date of birth. It was submitted by the petitioner that his correct date of birth is 21.1.1929. The petitioner also submitted necessary certificates in support of his date of birth. The said date of birth was disputed by the petitioner after his superannuation. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner has wrongly been retired by the respondents. The Labour Court further directed that correct date of birth of the petitioner be treated as 21.1.1929. The Labour Court further directed for the payment of back wages. 3. As against the said order passed by the Labour Court on 14.6.1989, which is Annexure 'c' to the petition, the respondents preferred an appeal under section 65 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The State Industrial Court allowed the appeal of the respondent employer and held that no illegality is found by the employer and the date of birth was correctly recorded by the Management as 21.9.1925. 4. The counsel for the petitioner before this Court submitted that the Industrial Court was not correct while coming to a conclusion in para-13 of its judgment Annexure 'D' to the petition. It is submitted that Industrial Court relied upon clause 14 (A) (2) of the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, these standing orders are not applicable to the respondents, as the respondent employer has their own certified standing orders. Therefore, the model standing orders shall not apply. 5. The counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that the said standing orders are not applicable but that by itself is not sufficient to quash the order of Industrial Court. Therefore, the model standing orders shall not apply. 5. The counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that the said standing orders are not applicable but that by itself is not sufficient to quash the order of Industrial Court. It is a case where the petitioner was engaged on 25.11.1957 and at the time when the petitioner entered in the services of the respondents, the employer recorded his date of birth a 21.9.1925. Accordingly to the claim of the petitioner, for the first time, h submitted an application in the year 1972 that his correct date of birth 21.1.1929. During this period, the petitioner did not submit and representation or application to the Management immediately after joining or within a reasonable time for correction of his date of birth in the records of the Management. 6. However, the Labour Court in its judgment has recorded a finding that the claim of the petitioner was not correct that he submitted an application in the year 1972 for correction of his date of birth. The Labour Court recorded a finding that an application was moved by the petitioner in the year 1978. Thus, it is a case where the petitioner slept over right from 25.1.1957 till 1972 or 1978. 7. On this basis, this Court does not find any fault in the judgment passed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court in para 11 of the judgment, itself has recorded a finding that when the petitioner entered into the services of the respondent Management then he was given two forms to fill up. He had been to the typist and got the form filled. Thereafter, he has signed the same. Subsequently, in para 12 or the judgment, the Industrial Court found that the information which was given to fill up the form, correctly and was filled up on the basis of the information given by the petitioner himself to the said clerk. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is dismissed.