SPAN INDIA PVT LTD Vs. RAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) The respondent was employed by the petitioner as a workman in 1977. In the record of the management, his date of birth was recorded as 1/1/1943. He was sought to be retired with effect from 31/12/2000. The respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. The following were the terms of reference:-

(3.) The Labour Court in the impugned award dated 4/1/2005 held that the correct date of birth was 1945 and directed wages to be paid till the period of 30/6/2003. Before the Labour Court, the respondent in his statement of claim said that his date of birth was 7/2/1948 and not 1/1/1943 as recorded by the petitioner management. He alleged that in the ESI Card, his date of birth was 1945. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioner management in its reply stated that at no time prior to 1997 the petitioner made any attempt for correction of his date of birth and that he has been rightly superannuated. According to the management, the plea of the workman about the date of birth having been raised 24 years after he joined service had to be rejected. Coming to the facts about the record, it was contended that the workman in February, 1996 while giving his nomination and declaration form under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 had given his date of birth as 1943. The management also said that the respondent/workman had not produced his date of birth certificate till 27/1/2000 i.e. till completion of 24 years of service. The Labour Court observed that there were three dates of birth available on record. One was 1/1/1943 recorded in the nomination form of the provident fund submitted on 2/2/1996. The second was 1945 recorded in the identity card issued by the ESI Corporation at the time of his appointment. The third was 7/2/1948 which was mentioned in the High School Examination Certificate. The Labour Court felt that the date of birth in the ESI Identity Card must have been recorded on the information supplied by the management and, therefore, that must have been the date of birth first recorded in point of time. Accordingly, the date of birth was held to be 1.1.1945 and superannuation with effect from 31.12.2000 or 8.1.2001 was found to be wrong. The Labour Court directed that the workman should have been retired with effect from 30.6.2003. For coming to the retirement age, the Labour Court referred to the standing orders which mentioned the date of superannuation as 58 years.