Jharkhand High Court
The Management Of M/S Damodar ... vs Their Workmen on 25 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(L) No. 1505 of 2017
------
The Management of M/s Damodar Valley Corporation, Bokaro Thermal, Bokaro
.... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Their Workmen, DVC Staff Association represented through President of DVC
Staff Association namely Sri R.S. Pandey.
2. Tejo Mahto. ..... Respondents.
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing.
-----
For the petitioner: Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate.
----
09/25.08.2021: Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the management-petitioner has prayed for quashing
the order dated 9.6.2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro in Reference Case No. 15/1996, whereby the Presiding Officer
has allowed the reference.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the dispute is in respect
of date of birth and the employee has raised the dispute at the fag end of the
service. He further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the reference should not have been entertained by the Labour Court and/or should
have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further submits that the
workman was supposed to superannuate as per record of the Company on
30.4.1993, but the petitioner has raised the dispute prior to six month of his
retirement. Thus the Tribunal has wrongly answered the reference in favour of the
workman, rather it should be dismissed on the ground of delay. He further submits
that the dispute is in respect of date of birth, which cannot be allowed as the same
has been raised by the workman at the fag end of his service career.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that it cannot be
said that the dispute was raised belatedly. He submits that the date of birth of the
workman was correctly recorded as 5.4.1943 in all records of the Company but in
the Service Roll, there was interpolation and the year of the date of birth i.e. '1943'
was made as 1933. He further submits that it was not within the knowledge of the
workman as to why the correction was carried out. He submits that if at all correction
was carried out by the management authority behind the back of the workman, it
has got no relevance. He further submits that the Management is now taking the
plea that the dispute has been raised belatedly and the management is trying to
justify their own wrong.
5. To counter this submission, the counsel for the petitioner-management,
submits that the correction which was made in the service roll was by the petitioner
himself, thus he cannot be allowed to take the ground that his date of birth has been
corrected behind his back.
6. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was working under the petitioner's
establishment. The workman is claiming his date of birth as 5.4.1943, whereas the
Management is claiming that the date of birth of the workman is 5.4.1933. The
Dispute was referred before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro in Reference Case No. 15/1996, where the terms of reference is as follows:-
"Whether to superannuate Sri Tejo Mahto, Khalasi,
Operation Section "A" Plant, DVC, Bokaro Thermal
accepting the date of birth as 5.4.1933 instead of date of
birth April 1943 by the Management is proper? If not,
what relief the workman I entitled to?"
7. The evidences were led by the parties, which were considered and the
Tribunal has held that the date of birth of the workman is 5.4.1943. The Tribunal
further hold that the correction which has been made in service description/service
roll cannot be accepted as the workman was appointed by the management on
temporary basis on 1.7.1966, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 5.4.1943.
The Tribunal further held that after regularization, the workman was required to
submit his fitness certificate and the Doctor, who examined the workman, assessed
the age of workman as 25 years in 1968, which has been marked as Ext. M-6. The
Management could not produce any clear and cogent evidence which shows that
the date of birth of the workman-respondent is 5.4.1933, thus, the Tribunal reached
a conclusion that the date of birth of the workman-respondent is 5.4.1943.
8. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-
management is that the correction was made by the respondent-workman in his
date of birth is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the service roll/service
description is in the custody of the employer and it is not possible for an employee to
make any correction in his service roll/service description. Any entry which has to be
made can only be done by the employer. Thus, the stand taken by the management
that the correction has been made by the respondent-workman cannot be accepted.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no illegality in the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The tribunal has
rightly given the findings of facts based on the record and the evidence as well as
exhibits. I do not find any perversity in the impugned award. This Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit as
appellate Court.
10. Since there is no perversity in the impugned award and the same has
been passed on the basis of cogent evidence and the materials available on record.
I find no ground to entertain this writ petition.
11. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
Anu-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
