JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6540/2018 and for the respondent No.3 in WP(C) No.2996/2018; Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.2996/2018 and for the respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.6540/2018. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent in WP(C) No.6540/2018 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP(C) No.2996/2018. 2. Both the writ petitions having arisen out of the award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh in reference Case No.1/2015, which was published on 05.03.2018 vide Memo No.GLR.32/2018/16-A, is being taken up together for final disposal by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as workman) in WP(C) No.6540/2018 was appointed as Sub-staff at the respondent tea estate of the respondent No.1 in WP(C) No.6540/2018 (hereinafter referred to as management) in the year 1986. 4. Thereafter, the workman was promoted to Sub- staff, Grade-II with effect from 01.06.2007 by order dated 22.05.2007. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, the management issued a notice of retirement to the workman indicating his date of retirement to be 31.12.2012. 5. It is the specific case of the workman that his date of birth ought to have been 24.08.1968 instead of 01.01.1954 and accordingly approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Tinsukia seeking a stay of his retirement. Thereafter, conciliation proceeding was initiated by the Labour Authorities, but the dispute could not be settled for which the workman filed an application before the Labour Court at Dibrugarh under Section 2A (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947), which was registered as ID Case No.1/2015 before the Labour Court. 6. Before the Labour Court, both the management and the workman had filed their respective written statements and had adduced evidence. After conclusion of hearing, the Labour Court was pleased to pass the impugned award, whereby it was held that the management is justified in retiring the workman on his superannuation. The Labour Court was of the further opinion that since no domestic enquiry was held, the management is liable to pay compensation to the workman and accordingly directed the management to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman. 7. The Labour Court was of the further opinion that since no domestic enquiry was held, the management is liable to pay compensation to the workman and accordingly directed the management to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman. 7. Situated thus, the workman filed WP(C) No.6540/2018 challenging the award of the Labour Court against the finding that the management is justified in retiring the workman and the management filed WP(C) No.2996/2018 against the direction passed by the Labour Court directing the management to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman. 8. Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the workman in WP(C) No.6540/2018 submits that under Rule 76 of the Assam Plantation Labour Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1956), it is incumbent upon the management to maintain registers and record the name, age and address of the workman in Form 8 and 9 thereof. 9. He further submits that in the present case, the management having not produced the Form 8 and 9 as required under the rules, adverse inference be drawn against the management. 10. He further submits that the school certificate produced by the workman bears the correct date of age of the workman and though the name in the said certificate is recorded as “Bango Munda” instead of “Mangra Etwa”, the two names are one and same, i.e. the workman and therefore the Labour Court ought to have accepted the said certificate and the affidavit filed by the workman in this regard. 11. He further submits that the PF Nomination Form relied by the management showing the age of workman recorded as 01.01.1954 ought not have taken into consideration as the workman in his evidence in chief, clearly stated that his signature in the PF Nomination Form was taken in blank form. 12. He further submits that in the census check list relied upon by the management, the date of birth of all the family members of the workman is strangely shown to have born on same date i.e. 1 st January of different years and therefore the same is highly doubtful. 13. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions:- i. Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd Vs T.P Natrajan & Ors. reported in 2021 (0) SSC 561. ii. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Abdul Halim & Ors. 13. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions:- i. Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd Vs T.P Natrajan & Ors. reported in 2021 (0) SSC 561. ii. West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Abdul Halim & Ors. reported in 2019 (18) SCC 39. iii. Municipal Council, Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors. reported in 2019 (10) SCC 738 . iv. Manager, Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) GLT 874. 14. Per contra, Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the management submits that there being no unreasonableness in the findings of the Labour Court, the award of the Labour Court ought not to be judicially interfered by this Court. 15. He further submits that the Form 8 and 10 are the register of adult workers and register of leave with wages of workers respectively and there is no provision/column in the said forms for recording the date of birth of the workman. 16. He further submits that, however, in Form 8 there is a column for recording the age of an adult worker. He further submits that it is not the pleaded case of the workman that the age of the workman recorded in Form 8 would have clearly demonstrated that his retirement on 31.12.2012 was unjustified. 17. He further submits that the workman did not call for the subject Form 8 and 10 from the management during the proceedings before the Labour Court. 18. He further submits that since the workman has disputed the age recorded in the official record maintained by the management, the onus was on the workman to prove his case. 19. He further submits that in connection with the school certificate, the school register as well as the Principal of the school, who had issued the certificate having not examined, the same is not admissible in evidence. 20. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandi Rani Barman Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors. reported in WP(C) No. 2328/2019. 21. He further submits that the workman in his cross- examination admitted that the signature in the PF Nomination Form is his own signature. 22. Union of India & 5 Ors. reported in WP(C) No. 2328/2019. 21. He further submits that the workman in his cross- examination admitted that the signature in the PF Nomination Form is his own signature. 22. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar. 23. It appears that the Labour Court framed the following issues for determination:- i. Whether the management of Bogapani Tea Estate is justified in making premature retirement of Mangra Etwa, a sub-staff w.e.f. 31.12.2012 instead of 23.08.2026? ii. Whether the date of birth of the workman Sri Mangra Etwa is 01.01.1954 or 24.06.1968? iii. Whether workman Sri Mangra Etwa is entitled to reinstatement in his service since 31.12.2012 with full back wages and other consequential benefits? iv. What relief(s) the parties are entitled to? 24. Thereafter, both the parties adduced their respective evidences and cross-examined each other’s witnesses. 25. It appears that the workman by producing a school leaving certificate dated 20.10.2012, wherein his age was recorded as 44 years 5 months, contended that his age therefore could not have been 58 as claimed by the management. 26. It appears that in the said school leaving certificate, the name of the workman is mentioned as one “Bango Munda” instead of “Mangra Etwa”. 27. It further appears that the workman filed an affidavit on 20.11.2012 clarifying that Bango Munda and Mangra Etwa are one and the same person i.e. the workman. 28. It appears that the management in its written statements filed before the Labour Court had pleaded that the workman was appointed in the garden on 21.03.1986 and in his PF Nomination Form, his date of birth is recorded as 01.01.1954. 29. It further appears that accordingly he was retired from his service on 31.12.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 30. It appears that the workman in his entire service carrier had never challenged his date of birth and only at the fag end of his retirement; he is challenging the date of birth recorded in the official records by producing one school certificate. 31. 30. It appears that the workman in his entire service carrier had never challenged his date of birth and only at the fag end of his retirement; he is challenging the date of birth recorded in the official records by producing one school certificate. 31. From the evidence available in the record of the Labour Court, it appears that the workman in his cross- examination before the Labour Court has admitted the fact that during the period of his service, he did not submit any document in relation to his age and also did not apply for the correction of date of birth in the garden record. 32. It further appears that he further clarifies that the signature in the PF Nomination Form is his own signature. Though during his examination in chief, he had deposed that his signature in PF Nomination Form was taken in blank form, the same is not believable in as much as he has never at any earlier point of time complaint that the management had taken his signature in a blank form. He further admitted that he left the school in the year 1981 and procured the school certificate in the year 2012 and collected the certificate after receiving the notice of retirement and Bango Munda is recorded in school only and not in any other institution or organization. 33. It further appears that the workman did not examine anyone from the said school to prove the certificate and its contents as well as school record, wherein the date of birth as claimed by him was recorded. 34. Apt at this juncture to refer to Rule 76 of the Rules, 1956, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “[76] Registers. (1) Every employer shall maintain- (a) registers of adult or non-adult workers in Form Nos. 34. Apt at this juncture to refer to Rule 76 of the Rules, 1956, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “[76] Registers. (1) Every employer shall maintain- (a) registers of adult or non-adult workers in Form Nos. 8 and 9] respectively, and (b) a register in [Form No.10] hereinafter called the Leave with Wages Register which shall be preserved for a period of three years after the last entry in it: Provided that if the Inspector or the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that any muster roll or register maintained by the employer gives the required particulars in respect of any or all workers in the plantation, he may by order in writing, direct that such muster roll or register shall, to the corresponding extent, be maintained in the place of and be treated as the register required under this sub-rule in respect of that plantation. (2)(a) Every employer shall provide a plantation worker a book in ["Form No.11"]† (hereinafter called the Leave Book). The Leave Book shall be the property of the worker and the employer or his agent shall not demand it except to make necessary entries, and shall not kept in for more than a week at a time; (b) If a worker loses his Leave Book, the employer shall provide him with another copy on the payment ["five paisa";2 (3) Every employer shall maintain a bound Inspection Book and shall produce it when required by the Inspector of Certifying Surgeon.” 35. Reading of the aforesaid Rules, it appears that the employer is required to maintain registers of adult and non adult workers in Form No.8 and 9 respectively appended to the said Rules and register of leave with wages in Form No.10. 36. Form No.8 and 10 is also extracted hereunder for ready reference:- FORM No. 8 Register of Adult workers (1) Serial No. (2) Name age and address (3) Father’s/Husband’s name (4) Date of appointment (5) Nature of work (6) Date of joining (7) Date and reasons for cessation of work (8) Passport size photograph FORM No. 10 Register of leave with wages Part-I-Adults Part-II- Non Adults Plantation …………… Serial No…….. Name of worker…. Serial No. in the Register of adult/non- Father’s/Husband’s name….. adult workers………. Address…………… Date of entry into service……. Name of worker…. Serial No. in the Register of adult/non- Father’s/Husband’s name….. adult workers………. Address…………… Date of entry into service……. Number of days worked Leave earned Leave at credit (including balances if any, on return from leave on last occassion Leave taken Balance on return from Leave Date on which wages for leave paid and amount paid Remarks From To Total days worked From To Number of days (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 37. Perusal of the aforesaid forms, it appears that there is no column provided for recording the date of birth of a worker in the said forms. However, it appears that in Form No. 8, there is a column for recording the age of an adult worker. 38. The argument of Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the workman that the Form No.8 and 10 are vital documents which ought to have been produced by the management before the Labour Court in support of their contention as regards the age of the workman is totally fallacious in as much as there is no column for recording the date of birth in the said two Forms appended to the Rules, 1956. In-fact rule 76 of the said Rules, 1956 further clarifies that these are registers of adult and non adult workers and for leave with wages. 39. Be that as it may, it is admitted that the workman has neither prayed before the Labour Court for directing the management to produce these two forms nor taken the said plea before the Labour Court. In-fact, the workman has taken up the said plea relating to Rule 76 and the said two forms for the first time before this Court. On this ground alone, the aforesaid plea of the learned counsel appearing for the workman is liable to be rejected. 40. Further, the workman could have made an application before the Labour Court for production of the said two forms by the management. On this ground alone, the aforesaid plea of the learned counsel appearing for the workman is liable to be rejected. 40. Further, the workman could have made an application before the Labour Court for production of the said two forms by the management. Apt in this regard to refer to Section 11(3) of the Act, 1947, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “(3) Every Board, Court, [Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal] shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) compelling the production of documents and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; (d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed, and every inquiry or investigation by a Board, Court, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 41. Perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is apparent that the Labour Court is vested with the same powers as that of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit in respect of, inter-alia, compelling the production of documents and material objects. 42. That being so, nothing prevented the workman from making an application before the Labour Court at the relevant time for seeking direction to the management to produce the said Form 8 and 10 as maintained under Rule76. 43. Having not done so, it is not open for the workman to contend before this Court at this stage that because of non production of the aforesaid two forms by the management before the Labour Court, adverse inference has to be drawn against the management. In- fact, it appears that the workman has intentionally not taken any steps to call for the said two forms before the Labour Court. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn against the workman that the aforesaid two forms, if called, would have not supported the case of the workman. 44. In- fact, it appears that the workman has intentionally not taken any steps to call for the said two forms before the Labour Court. Hence, adverse inference can be drawn against the workman that the aforesaid two forms, if called, would have not supported the case of the workman. 44. It appears that based on evidence, the Labour Court recorded the finding that the management was justified in retiring the workman on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012 and rejected the contention of the workman that his date of birth is 24.08.1968. 45. Operative portion of the impugned award is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “(15) I have also heard arguments of both sides. The learned counsel while arguing for and on behalf of the workman has submitted that Sri Mangra Etwa and Sri Bango Munda are the one and same person and in this connection the workman has already submitted his School Leaving Certificate (Exhibit-1). He also filed an affidavit (Exhibit-2) in this connection stating that his date of birth is 24.08.1968 and not 01.01.1954 and therefore he should be retired on 23.08.2026 and prayed to set aside the notice of retirement (Exhibit-3) and also reinstate the workman with full back wages and consequential benefits. On the other hand the learned counsel while arguing for and on behalf of the management of Bogapani Tea Estate has submitted that Sri Bango Munda and Sri Mangra Etwa are not the same person. He has submitted a false School Leaving Certificate and an affidavit in connection with his date of birth. The date of birth of Sri Mangra Etwa is 01.01.1954 as per official record of the tea garden and as per the PF Nomination Form duly signed by the workman Sri Mangra Etwa. In census checklist the workman’s date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1954 which is a computer-generated document. The learned counsel for the management has further submitted that in every document the workman has mentioned his name as Sri Mangra Etwa not Sri Bango Munda. The workman made his affidavit on 20.11.2012 after getting the notice of retirement. At the end of his career the workman is challenging his date of birth which is not acceptable. In all office papers he has signed and mentioned his name as Sri Mangra Etwa not Sri Bango Munda. The workman made his affidavit on 20.11.2012 after getting the notice of retirement. At the end of his career the workman is challenging his date of birth which is not acceptable. In all office papers he has signed and mentioned his name as Sri Mangra Etwa not Sri Bango Munda. In the initial petition filed by the workman, the workman name is mentioned as Sri Mangra Etwa not Sri Bango Munda. He has not even mentioned in the original petition that Sri Mangra Etwa and Sri Bango Munda is the one and same person. In his voter ID Card his name is mentioned as Sri Mangra Etwa and not Sri Bango Munda. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that the School Leaving Certificate submitted by the workman is of someone else’s. The workman is trying to mislead the court by producing a wrong school certificate. If at all his date of birth was wrongly entered in office record, then why the workman did not correct it within three years from his appointment. The workman is not entitled for any back wages or reinstatement as prayed for. The learned counsel for the management in support of his contention placed reliance of the case 2016 (5) Gauhati Law Journal 608 Union of India and Others Vs. Mukul Chandra Bhattacharyya. Held Para 13 ‘While the HSLC certificate can be an acceptable document for rectification of the date of birth for an employee, the representation for rectification cannot be considered on the eve of retirement as was held in the Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2647 . It is well settled that application for correction of date of birth can’t be entertained at the fag end of the service career ( Burn Standard Co Ltd vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar reported in AIR 1995 SC 1499 ) .’ (16) I have carefully sifted the evidence on record. Considering the evidence on record, submission of the learned counsels of both sides and reliance of the decision I hold that the Management of Bogapani Tea Estate has justifiably retired the workman/delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa on his superannuation. So, I have decided the issue No.1 against the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa and in favour of the Management. Considering the evidence on record, submission of the learned counsels of both sides and reliance of the decision I hold that the Management of Bogapani Tea Estate has justifiably retired the workman/delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa on his superannuation. So, I have decided the issue No.1 against the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa and in favour of the Management. (17) Accordingly, I have also decided the issue No.2 against the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa and in favour of the Management. (18) I am of the view, that the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa is not entitled to reinstatement in his service with full back wages and other consequential benefits and this issue No.3 is also decided accordingly against the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa and in favour of the management.” 46. Perusal of the aforesaid award, it is apparent that the Labour Court after analysing the evidence has answered the three issues against the workman. This Court finds no manifest or palpable error apparent on the face of the record of the award. 47. It is well settled law that a writ of certiorari is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provision of law and a grave injustice of gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 48. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 . Paragraph 38 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder: (1) Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1-7-2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (1) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred thereagainst and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 49. Viewed from the aforesaid angle, WP(C) No.6540/2018 is devoid of any merit whatsoever. Resultantly, WP(C) No.6540/2018 stands dismissed. 50. Viewed from the aforesaid angle, WP(C) No.6540/2018 is devoid of any merit whatsoever. Resultantly, WP(C) No.6540/2018 stands dismissed. 50. In WP(C) No.2996/2018 , it appears that though in view of the findings in respect of issue nos.1, 2 and 3, the Labour Court did not order reinstatement, however, awarded compensation to the workman amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- by holding as hereunder:- “(19) The management is a local authority, the terms and conditions of the employment of the employees are governed by statute and statutory rules. Similarly the retirement of the employees is also governed by such statute and statutory rules. There was no domestic enquiry held, though it is the most important one in case of any dispute between the employee and the employer. Knowing well that the employees are weaker party in the industrial relation. Thus it is utmost important for the employers to carry out the enquiries in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It reveals from the record that there was no domestic enquiry held in connection with the instant case. (20) Keeping view of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh) only to the workman would be a just relief in lieu of reinstatement.The compensation shall be paid to the workman/delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa within four weeks, i.e. one month from the date of publication of this order, failing which the management shall have to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount. Accordingly issue No.4 is decided in favour of the delinquent employee Sri Mangra Etwa.” 51. It appears that the compensation was awarded to the workman on the basis that no domestic enquiry was held by the management. It further appears that the aforesaid finding of the Labour Court is palpably and manifestly erroneous in as much as the workman being retired on superannuation, there was no occasion for the management to hold any domestic enquiry. Therefore, the award dated 21.12.2017 so far awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the workman by the management is concerned, the same is hereby set aside and quashed. 52. Accordingly, WP(C) No.2996/2018 stands allowed. 53. No order as to cost.