MANAGEMENT OF MATA JAI KAUR Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 18 th August, 2005 passed by the Labour Court whereby the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service was granted to the respondent no. 3 after holding that her services had been terminated illegally w.e.f. 20 th June, 2000 by the petitioner-management.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondent no. 3 was employed with the petitioner as an ayah since the early eighties. It is common case of the parties that the age of retirement of petitioner's employees was 60 years and further that at the time of her appointment she had submitted proof of her date of birth. Vide letter dated 28 th February,1995 respondent no. 3 was informed by the petitioner that though it appeared to the management that she had already reached age of retirement but since the school records were burnt during the 1984 riots in Delhi she was asked to produce documentary proof in support of her age. The respondent no. 3 submitted an affidavit dated 29 th March, 1995 claiming her date of birth to be 14 th June, 1950. However, that affidavit was not accepted by the petitioner-management and so it asked the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 12 th July, 1995 to get herself medically examined for determination of her age. But she did not agree to subject herself to medical examination. So, the petitioner decided to treat her as retired w.e.f. 1 st June, 1996 and accordingly she was served with a letter dated 31 st May, 1996 to that effect. Alongwith that letter the petitioner had also enclosed a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,324/-. which included salary for the month of May,1996 and also for the months of June,1996 to August,1996, It appears to be the case of the petitioner that on receipt of that intimation respondent no.3 wrote a letter dated 3 rd June, 1996 to the petitioner withdrawing her affidavit dated 29 th March, 1995 and sought an apology for giving incorrect date of birth in that affidavit and she gave another affidavit dated 3 rd June, 1996 claiming that her correct date of birth was 14 th June, 1940 and also an undertaking that she will now not seek any further correction her date of birth. The petitioner management accepted that affidavit and then withdrew its letter dated 31 st May,1996 and based on the date of birth of 14 th June,1940 retired her on 30 th June,2000.

(3.) The respondent no. 3 felt that she had been prematurely retired since as per her date of birth of 14 th June, 1950 she was supposed to retire in the year 2010. She thus considered her retirement w.e.f. 1st July, 2000 to be in fact illegal termination of her services. She thus raised an industrial dispute and the same came to be referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court. The following was the term of reference:-