Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 705 (JHR)

Kamoda Devi v. Steel Authority of India

2011-07-20

DHIRUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL

body2011
ORDER D.N. Patel, J. 1. Present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that the petitioner's services were terminated much earlier than the actual date of superannuation, and therefore, the following reference was filed under Section 10 for the adjudication by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad:-- Whether the action of the management of Bhawanathpur Lime Stone Mines Bhawanathpur, Garhwa in superannuating/retiring Smt. Kanoda Devi w.e.f. 27.10.1999 considering her date of birth as 10.10.1937 and not considering the date of birth as 10.10.1945 as calimed by the workman is justified if not to what relief the workmen is entitled. 2. The aforesaid reference was thus filed before the Tribunal wherein reference No. 107 of 2001 and the award was passed by the Tribunal dated 16th August. 2005 and the operative part of the award reads as under:-- In the result the following award is rendered; That the action of the management of Bhawanathpur Lime Stone Mine, Bhawanathpur Garhwa in superannuating/retiring Smt. Kamoda Devi w.e.f. 27.10.1999 considering her date of birth as 10.10.1937 and not considering the date of birth as 10.10.1945 was not justified. Age of the concerned female worker named above should be reassessed by the management through Apex Medical Board in strict compliance to Medical Jurisprudence and the decision of the said board should be binding on both sides. Management is directed to arrange for the said Medical Board within the three months from the date of publication of this award in the Gazette of India. Sd/- (B. Biswas) Presiding Officer. 3. Thus, instead of deciding the reference the petitioner was relegated to Apex Medical Board. The Medical Board was constituted by the respondents and the respondents have written a letter dated 23rd February, 2007, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition, that the medical board has examined the petitioner and the age of the petitioner has been found within the range of 53 to 63 years as on date of superannuation i.e. 27th October, 1999. The last paragraph of the said letter reads as under:-- Taking into account of range of age as per findings/opinion of the Apex Medical Board, your age was determined to have been in the range of 53 to 63 years on the date of your superannuation i.e. on 27.10.1999). The last paragraph of the said letter reads as under:-- Taking into account of range of age as per findings/opinion of the Apex Medical Board, your age was determined to have been in the range of 53 to 63 years on the date of your superannuation i.e. on 27.10.1999). Accordingly, the date of retirement from the services of the Company on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 27.10.2006 which has already been accepted and further confirmed by the findings of the said Apex Medical Board. Thanking you. Yours faithfully Sd/- (P.C. Tiwari) Asstt/General Manager (P&A) 4. Thus, petitioner's date of superannuation was finalised by the respondents as 27th October, 2006. In fact, the petitioner was wrongly superannuated on 27th October, 1999. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the respondents issued a letter dated 4th August, 2007 (Annexure-5) that in earlier letter dated 23rd February, 2007 there is some error, therefore, corrigendum was issued in a partial modification and instead of 27th October, 2006 the date of superannuation will now read as 27th October, 1999. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the date of superannuation even after medical examination is refixed as the same i.e. 27th October, 1999 and the Industrial Tribunal has also not finally decided the reference and therefore, the matter be remanded for its final decision upon the terms of the reference and also keeping in view the further development about the medical examination of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was examined by the Apex Medical Board constituted by the respondents, as directed by the Central Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad and upon examination of petitioner, it is true that initially a letter was written by the respondent dated 23rd February, 2007 wherein a new date of superannuation was finalised as 27th October, 2006 which was found to be erroneous and therefore, again a letter was written dated 4th August. 2007 (Annexure-5) and a corrigendum was issued to the effect that instead of 27th October. 2006 a new date 27th October, 1999 will be read and moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there was no clear cut decision upon the terms of the reference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. 2007 (Annexure-5) and a corrigendum was issued to the effect that instead of 27th October. 2006 a new date 27th October, 1999 will be read and moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that there was no clear cut decision upon the terms of the reference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. The duty of the Tribunal was to decide in the reference which has been shifted upon the Medical Board by the Tribunal and therefore, let the matter be remanded so that the terms of the reference may be finally decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the further development also. 6. In view of this limited submission and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the terms of reference ought to have been decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad. The duty of the Tribunal can never be shifted to the Apex Medical Board as directed by the Tribunal in the last paragraph of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, as stated hereinabove. Medical Board has already examined the petitioner which has been brought on record at Annexures-4 and 5. 7. I, hereby, restore the Reference No. 107 of 2001 to its original file and remand the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad to the decide reference No. 107 of 2001. The Tribunal will also decide the terms of reference in the light of the medical examination of the petitioner and on the basis of Annexure-4 to the memo of this petition. All these documents shall be presented by the management before the Tribunal. The report given by the Apex Medical Board is not record of this writ petition, hence, it will also be called upon from the management and it will be taken on record and the Tribunal will decide the terms of reference on the basis of this further development i.e. medical examination. The Tribunal will also keep in mind all the observations which are already made in the order dated 16.08.2005. The Reference will be deemed to be continue so that evidence, already taken on record can also be considered in light of further development. 8. The Tribunal will also keep in mind all the observations which are already made in the order dated 16.08.2005. The Reference will be deemed to be continue so that evidence, already taken on record can also be considered in light of further development. 8. I, hereby, direct the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad to decide reference No. 107 of 2001 as expeditiously as possible, practicably and preferably within the period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for both sides assured this Court that they will not ask for unnecessary adjournment and shall cooperate the hearing of the reference. 9. This writ petition is disposed of in view of the aforesaid observations. Writ petition disposed of.