Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2157 (MAD)

K. Ponnusamy v. The Presiding Officer & Another

2008-07-01

K.CHANDRU

body2008
Judgment Heard Mr. Nazirullah, learned counsel appearing for Mr. K.V. Shanmuganathan and Mr. T. Chandrasekaran for the respondent Corporation and perused the records. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner/ workman against the Award of the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.141 of 1993 dated 112. 1995. The grievance of the petitioner was that at the time of joining the service on 011. 1973, the date of birth was given wrongly as 13.04.1932. However, subsequently it was found that was not his date of birth and he sought for his date of birth to be altered as 13.04.1941. If this request of the petitioner was accepted, he would have had the benefit of another ten years of service. But, however the petitioner raised the issue only long after joining the service. Under Rule 33 of the Service Rules, any request for change of date of birth will have to be made within five years from the date of joining the service. When the petitioner did not get the benefit of this alteration, he was retired from service on 30.04.1990 on reaching the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute against the so called non-employment and took up the matter before the Labour Court as I.D.No.141 of 1993. 3. Before the Labour Court the petitioner did not examine himself, whereas on the side of the Management one Thirunavukkarasu was examined as M.W.1. On the side of the petitioner/workman, two documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.W.1 and Ex.W.2. On the side of the second respondent Management, 19 documents were filed and they were marked as Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.19. On an analysis of the evidence placed before it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner cannot be accepted and therefore, declined to grant any relief to the petitioner by its Award dated 112. 1998. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The Labour Court held that the petitioner claims that he worked in a Corporation School from 1949 to 1954 but, no records have not been produced for the same and in terms of the service he has not submitted any request for change. Therefore, in the light of the same, the I.D.No.141 of 1993 was dismissed. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, a counter affidavit dated 24.08.2006 has been filed justifying the award. Therefore, in the light of the same, the I.D.No.141 of 1993 was dismissed. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, a counter affidavit dated 24.08.2006 has been filed justifying the award. The finding rendered by the Labour Court that the petitioners claim was belated and not supported by any credible materials cannot be found fault with. In the light of the same, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.