Delhi High Court
The Management Of M/S Delhi ... vs Shri Mehar Singh Through His Lrs on 27 August, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 4795/2006
% Date of Decision: 27th August, 2009
# THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Ms. Arati Mahajan, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ SHRI MEHAR SINGH
(THROUGH HIS LRs)
.....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
This writ petition filed by Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter
to be referred as DTC) is directed against an award of the Industrial
Adjudicator dated 26.07.2004 by which it has been directed to treat the
workman Mehar Singh in service and to give him all consequential
benefits including pension and promotional benefits treating his date of
birth as 01.07.1937.
2. The deceased workman Mehar Singh was an ex-serviceman. After
his discharge from the service of the Army, he was employed by the
petitioner as a Driver. He was initially appointed on short-term basis and
was later on taken as Retainer Crew Driver w.e.f. 29.01.1968.
3. The case of the DTC is that the deceased workman Mehar Singh
had furnished an affidavit dated 21.02.1967 stating his date of birth as
10.09.1937. Later on the petitioner had furnished his Discharge
Certificate given to him by the Army in which his date of birth was
mentioned as 01.07.1937. However, the date of birth of the deceased
workman in his Service Book was mentioned as 10.09.1937, being the
date of birth disclosed by him in his affidavit furnished on 21.02.1967.
Later on the petitioner got the deceased workman examined from its
Medical Board, in whose opinion the age of the petitioner in 1975 was 45
years. On the basis of the said opinion of the Medical Board, the date of
birth in the service record of deceased workman was rectified and
changed from 10.09.1937 to 01.01.1930. This was done without giving
any opportunity to the workman or holding any inquiry regarding correct
date of birth of the workman. The workman was retired by the petitioner
w.e.f. 31.12.1987, as on that date he reached the age of superannuation
of 58 years taking his date of birth as 01.01.1930 against the date of
birth 10.09.1937 disclosed by the workman in the affidavit furnished to
the petitioner much before he was taken as a Retainer Crew Driver on
29.01.1968.
4. The workman aggrieved by his premature retirement had raised an
industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for
adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court in its impugned
award has returned findings in favour of the workman and against the
petitioner to the effect that the petitioner acted illegally in treating the
date of birth of the workman as 01.01.1930 in stead of 01.07.1937
mentioned in his Discharge Certificate of Army Ex. WW-1/3.
5. The workman has expired on 07.04.2005 after the date of the
award but before filing of the present writ petition. His legal heirs have
been arrayed as parties respondents in the present writ petition.
6. The respondents, being the legal heirs of the deceased workman,
have produced the school record of the workman before this Court which
contains the details of date of birth not only of the deceased workman
but of many other students who have taken admission in the school
around the same time when the workman took admission in the school.
A perusal of the school record (extract of which is at page 164 of the
Paper Book) shows the date of birth of the deceased workman to be
01.07.1937. The same date of birth is mentioned in his Army Discharge
Certificate Ex. WW-1/3. It is an admitted fact on record that opportunity
was not given to the deceased workman before changing his date of birth
in the service Book from 10.09.1937 to 01.01.1930. This change of date
of birth in the service record of the deceased workman is in complete
contravention of principles of natural justice. It seems that the petitioner
has acted most arbitrarily in changing the date of birth in the Service
Book of the deceased workman from 10.09.1937 to 01.01.1930 and in
retiring him prematurely about 7 years before the actual date of his
retirement. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned award that may call for an interference by
this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
AUGUST 27, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'
