Bombay High Court
Supt Engineer Ms.Eb And Another vs Kishan S/O Laaxman Badae on 15 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/699/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 1997
1. Superintending Engineer,
MSEB, Latur.
2. Executive Engineer,
MSEB Divisional Office,
Latur. ..Petitioners
Versus
Kishen Laxman Bade
Aged 55 years, Occ. service
R/o Latur, Kole Nagar, Latur. ..Respondent
...
Advocate for Respondent : Shri R.B.Deshmukh
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 15, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. None present for the petitioners. I have heard Shri Deshmukh,
learned Advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
13.1.1997, delivered by the Industrial Court, Solapur, by which,
Revision (ULP) No. 76 of 1995 has been allowed and the petitioner
has been directed to correct the date of birth of the respondent from
11.9.1937 to 1.3.1939 and pay him wages for the said period with
retiral benefits.
WP/699/1997
3. Shri Deshmukh has strenuously supported the impugned
judgment. He specifically draws my attention to paragraph Nos.15 to
18 of the impugned judgment and contends that the Industrial Court
has rightly set aside the judgment of the Labour Court and has rightly
directed the petitioner to correct the date of birth of the
respondent, thereby, giving him the benefit of service for a period of
18 months. He submits that there is no perversity in the impugned
judgment and this Court should not upset the findings of the
Industrial Court, which are based on the record and proceedings.
4. I am informed that the respondent joined duties with the
petitioner as a lineman on 31.7.1959. It is also undisputed that the
retirement age of lineman is 58 years. It is also undisputed that the
date of birth of the respondent entered in the service book was
11.9.1937 and he sought correction of his date of birth by application
dated 21.12.1994 after putting in 35 years and 5 months in
employment.
5. The respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 29 of 1995 before
the Labour Court at Latur, alleging that he is being wrongly
superannuated w.e.f. 30.9.1995 and therefore, his retirement be
stayed. It is further prayed that his date of birth be corrected from
11.9.1937 to 1.3.1939 and he be granted the service benefits for the
said period of about 18 months.
WP/699/1997
6. By judgment dated 29.9.1995, delivered one day before the
respondent retired, the Labour Court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that there was an overwriting in the service book, date of
birth is mentioned as 11.9.1937 and the respondent has not
attempted to seek correction of his date of birth for 35 years and 5
months. The Labour Court also concluded that date of birth in the
service record cannot be corrected at the fag end of the service.
7.
The petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No. 76 of 1995 before
the Industrial Court and by the impugned order dated 13.1.1997, the
Industrial Court, while exercising limited jurisdiction under Section
44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act "), has set aside the
judgment of the Labour Court and granted benefits of service of 18
months to the respondent.
8. I find that the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court is
perverse and unsustainable for two reasons. Firstly, that the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the said Act is
akin to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. It is revisional jurisdiction and not appellate
jurisdiction. The Industrial Court cannot consider a Revision Petition
as if it is dealing with an Appeal against the judgment of the Labour
WP/699/1997
Court. Secondly, it is well settled that the correction of the date of
birth, for any reason whatsoever, cannot be permitted at the fag end
of the career.
9. I find it unbelievable that the respondent, who was working as
a lineman from 31.7.1959, was unaware for 35 years and 5 months
that his date of birth entered in the service book is 11.9.1937. There
is no justifiable reason put forth as to how can the respondent
pretend of having no knowledge about the date of birth entered in
his service book. When about 9 months remained for his retirement,
he moved an application on 21.12.1994, praying for correction in the
date of birth.
10. In the above backdrop, merely because a second view was
possible, the Industrial Court, while exercising it's revisional
jurisdiction, should not have interfered with the findings on facts
arrived at by the Labour Court and more so, in the light of the law
that correction in the date of birth cannot be permitted at the fag
end of the career.
11. It was observed by the Labour Court that it was only for the VI
Standard education that the respondent was admitted in the said
school, which had furnished the entry of his birth in the School
record as 1.3.1939. The record of the School in which the
WP/699/1997
respondent had taken education from the I to V Standards was not
produced before Labour Court or even Industrial Court. The reasons
for suppressing the said record are evident.
12. In the light of the above, this petition is allowed. The
impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 13.1.1997 is
quashed and set aside and Revision (ULP)No. 76 of 1995 stands
dismissed. Needless to state, the judgment of the Labour Court
dated 29.5.1995 stands restored.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
