RAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority. Labour Court dated 07.05.2003 passed on a reference made by the Labour Commissioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that that the petitioner was working on the post of labour since 1968 with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and according to him has been retrenched w.e.f. 31.07.1998. It is claimed that as per High School Certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.07.1947 and he was aged about 25 years when he joined the service and as per Rules the age of superannuation is 60 years, thus, the petitioner is to retire on 3 1.07.2007, while he has been removed from service on 31.07.1998. According to the petitioner, he has been removed without complying the procedure of Section 6 N and 2 P of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

(3.) The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has not been removed from service, but he has been retired on 31.07.1998 after completing the age of 60 years. The petitioner has not filed any High School Certificate. In the year 1993 he has been medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer before whom he told his age as 60 years, but on medical examination his age was found 55 years and then he himself submitted the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer dated 14.07.1993 in which his age was certified at 55 years and, therefore, he was retired on 31.07.1998 on completion of 60 years. It is the case of the respondent that after the retirement, he received his all retiral benefit and no objection whatsoever has been raised at that stage and subsequently, on the basis of the High School Certificate, which has been admittedly obtained on 21.11.1998 a dispute has been raised. Thus, the Prescribed Authority has rightly not accepted the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth is 10.07.1947 and he has been illegally removed from service on 31.07.1998.