Jharkhand High Court
P. G. Shekhar vs M/S T M L Drivelines Limited on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(L) No. 1591 of 2018
P. G. Shekhar .... .. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s T M L Drivelines Limited, Jamshedpur .. ... ... Respondent
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
.........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate.
Ms. Bandana Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
......
07/ 02.12.2021.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Saibal Mitra assisted by learned counsel for
the petitioner, Ms. Bandana Sinha.
Petitioner- P. G. Shekhar has preferred the writ petition against the Award
dated 29.06.2017, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur
in I.D. Case No.11 of 2012, whereby I.D. Case No.11 of 2012 has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was
appointed on contractual basis on temporary rolls of M/s Tata Engineering &
Locomotive Company Limited, Jamshedpur, as a registered ward of M/s P.S.
Ganpathy, Ex. No.2222/10809/1 on 26.05.1979 as an unskilled mate and his date
of birth was recorded as on 18.06.1955 in the company's employment book.
In the year 1980, under the provisions of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act,
1970, a huge number of temporary employees were made permanent and this
workman was also one of them. At the time of permanency, this workman had
produced all the documents which were produced in the Employment Bureau in
the year 1979 when he was taken as temporary employee of M/s. TELCO
Limited.
In the year 1980, the workman was asked to sign on the employment
papers which were to be filled up later on because there was huge number of
employees near about 2800, who were made permanent from the same date under
the agreement with several unions of Jamshedpur including the registered union,
Telco workers Union and the management of TELCO Ltd., Jamshedpur.
After few years of his permanency, workman came to know that at the time
of maintaining the records of permanent employees, his date of birth was
erroneously recorded as 07.05.1952 and then he started follow up work from
1985 for correction of date of his birth as 18.06.1955 instead of 07.05.1952 as
mentioned in the service record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the fact, that as
per the order no. 8(a), the only document required as a proof of date of birth is the
School Leaving Certificate of the workman which the workman has produced in
the year, 1990 as issued by the Guru Nanak High School, Sakchi, Jamshedpur
showing the School Leaving Certificate dated 07.02.1990 and requested to make
correction in the date of birth, which was placed first time by the workman after
10 years of this employment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned
Tribunal has wrongly submitted that it is admitted fact that petitioner-workman
was taken on medical examination for determination of his age, which is apparent
error of record as no such medical examination was conducted for determination
of age.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that Conciliation
Officer took prompt action in the matter, but in 4-5 sittings of conciliation
proceedings, the conciliation could not succeed and ultimately the grievance of
the workman was referred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for adjudication. The
term of reference mentioned in the notification No.1/shrma. D-05-31/2011 L & E
2511 dated 14.11.2011 was as "Whether not to rectify the date of birth of Shri
P.G. Shekhar, Ticket No.5210/79279/2, workman of M/s. H.V. Transmissions Ltd.
Jamshedpur by the management is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled
to ?"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is in the
year 2011 that such reference has been made and prior to that 4-5 sittings of
Conciliation was made since 1985 till 2011. Subsequently that Reference Case
No.10 of 2011 has been withdrawn. The workman has also preferred Title Suit
No.126 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division-I and management after
appearance in the case, sought adjournment of the case at two occasions for filing
show cause and when the management filed the show cause, the Presiding
Magistrate was transferred and the injunction petition could not be heard in the
Civil Court.
Meanwhile the workman had been illegally separated from the service of
the company w.e.f. 31.05.2012. Since the situation had been changed after his
illegal separation, workman decided to withdraw Title Suit No.126 of 2011 from
the Civil Court, Jamshedpur and accordingly filed withdrawal petition, before the
concerned court and the same was disposed of, thus said Reference Case No. 10
of 2011 was made when the workman was in the service of the above
management and had sought rectification of date of his birth so that he might
serve the company till completion of 60 years of age but nothing came in favour
of the workman, as he was illegally re retrenched from the service of the
company w.e.f. 31.05.2012, he wished to withdraw the Reference Case No.10 of
2011 with permission of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur to file a separate I.D.
Case after raising fresh industrial dispute before the management and the
Conciliation Officer for his reinstatement and / or damages for his illegal
retrenchment or termination otherwise from the service of the company.
Accordingly a withdrawal petition dated 13.07.2012 was filed before the
Labour Court, Jamshedpur and the Award of the case was pronounced on
14.08.2012. In pursuance of the provisions of the I.D. Act, the workman raised
fresh demand to the Chief Executive Officer of M/s T.M.L. Drivelines,
Jamshedpur on 16.07.2012 and served the copies of the said demand letter to the
Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Conciliation Officer on 16.07.2012. The
Conciliation proceeding could not be started during this period and therefore the
workman has filed this case for setting aside his illegal, wrongful, motivated and
unjustified retrenchment of services with effect from 31.05.2012.
It appears to this Court, that the workman has claimed himself to be
studied up to Class-XI, but he has not provided any proof of the same nor filled
up column of the date of birth, disclosing his actual date of birth rather mentioned
his age to be 25 years. As per order 8(a) of the Works Standing Orders, the
workman did not provide the School Leaving Certificate, which was only
provided after alleged issuance of the said certificate from Guru Nanak High
School, Sakchi, Jamshedpur on 07.02.1990.
This Court under the writ jurisdiction cannot question the validity of order
no.8 of Works Standing Orders. It also appears that the workman had studied up
to Class-XI being an educated person, did not mention his date of birth nor
produced the certificate with regard to date of birth and also did not provide the
School Leaving Certificate as contemplated under order 8(a) of the Works
Standing Orders, as such, this Court in view of the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Shyam
Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411, is not inclined to interfere with the
same.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
