NARULLAKHAN SIKANDERKHAN Vs. MODISTONE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14-9-2001 whereby the Industrial Court, has allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner under section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act (the Act) and thereby quashed the Order dated 30-11-1998 in Complaint (ULP) No. 115 of 1995. The operative part of the Labour Court Order is as under :

(2.) The respondent/complainant by letter dated 7-7-1994 intimated the petitioner that his date of retirement on record is 31-12-1994. The petitioner, therefore, immediately made representation on 29-9-1994 along with the supporting documents i.e. School Leaving Certificate and Passport. These two documents were neither in dispute nor its contents.

(3.) The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mumbai, therefore, relying on these documents, though there were some admissions made contrary to those documents and passed the above order which, in my view, ought not to have interfered with by the Revisional Court under section 44 of the Act by reappreciating the same by giving importance to the oral admissions so recorded and by overlooking these two documents totally on the foundation that those documents were there at later stage of the proceeding. The respondent/ management, as recorded, intimated the retirement date at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the supporting material so placed on record immediately and definitely prior to 31-12-1994 ought to have been considered. It is not the case of submitting application at fag end of the service career by the petitioner. This, on the contrary, where the case of employer/management intimated the wrong date of birth at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner. Therefore the principle, in any way, is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case that of having moved for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career.