AMCO BATTERIES LTD Vs. MARIAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Management has filed this petition challenging the Award in favour of the workman setting aside his order of superannuation and directing his reinstatement and conferring all consequential benefits including back wages.

(2.) THE facts of the case are :-The workman is said to have joined the petitioner as on 27-1-1963. At that point of time, his age was recorded as twenty in the service record. However, the workman having received a communication from the petitioner, as per letter dated 16-11-1992, that he would be attaining his age of superannuation of 60 years as on 26-1-1993 - he had protested as this was an incorrect computation of his age. In fact, he would have attained his age of superannuation only as on 26-1-2003. Accordingly, a written representation was made by him as per letter dated 4-12-1992. The management did not agree. At his insistence, he was shown his service record and it was then that, according to the workman, he had discovered an obvious tampering of the record. In view of the stand taken by the Management, the workman had filed a civil suit seeking injunctory relief against the Management restraining his termination. The Civil Court had rejected the application. The Management had proceeded to terminate the services of the workman effective from 26-1-1993. It is in this background that the respondent workman had raised an industrial dispute.

(3.) THE petitioner had contested the claim. As the declared age of the workman, at the time of joining was stated as 30 and his date of birth 27-1-1933, this is reflected in the service record and in terms of the Standing orders governing the workman - the age as indicated in the service record shall be the final proof of age.