RAVINDRAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are head load workers, who claims to have been continued under the 2nd respondent for a number of years and now terminated on the strength of an alleged agreement arrived at, on conciliation. The genesis of the dispute is in Exhibit P1, wherein five head load workers, employed in the 2nd respondent, were directed to produce either a school certificate, attested copy of the school admission register or a certificate issued by the Local Self Government Institution to prove their date of birth. Exhibit P1 was issued on the ground that the said proof of date of birth was required for enrolment under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity "EPF Act") and that the 3rd respondent -Organization had insisted for production of either of the above -mentioned certificates.

(2.) THE petitioners, who were two among the aforesaid five head load workers notified by Exhibit P1, contended that they do not have any of the above certificates. However, the 1st petitioner produced Exhibit P2 issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India, Government of India, which shows his date of birth as 10.04.1960. He also deposed to an affidavit, asserting his date of birth as disclosed in Exhibit P2. With respect to the 2nd petitioner, the Identity Card issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation as also the Electoral Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, produced herein as Exhibit P4 and P4(a), were produced. Exhibit P4 indicated the date of birth of the 2nd petitioner as 03.03.1957, in consonance with which the age of the 2nd petitioner as on 2006 was disclosed to be 49 years in Exhibit P4(a).

(3.) THE 2nd respondent being unsatisfied with the same, allegedly entered into an agreement with the representative Unions, evidenced at Exhibit P6, by which the non -production of the school records was found to be deeming, the five employees notified by Exhibit P1, as having crossed the age of 60 years. They were also agreed to be granted a compensation of Rs.55,000/ - (Rupees fifty five thousand only) each. The petitioners contend that the representative Unions could not have entered into an agreement with the management, the terms of which effectively terminates the services of the petitioners.