ZILLA PARISHAD Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner employer has questioned the judgment dated 07.07.2003 delivered by Respondent No. 1 Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, in Complaint ULP No. 55 of 2002. This Court has on 30.07.2003, while issueing rule in the matter, granted ad interim relief and that relief continues to operate even today.

(2.) Heard Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. Nobody has appeared for Respondent No. 2.

(3.) The short contention of Shri Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner employer is, Respondent No. 2 entered the service in 1970 as a Peon and on that day, his date of birth was recorded as 15.07.1944. Approximately 30 years thereafter, he moved an application for correcting it as15.06.1947 and the then incumbent functioning as District Health Officer (Petitioner No. 2) allowed that request and carried out necessary correction. When Petitioner No. 1 sought to retire Respondent No. 2 on attaining the age of 58 years, he questioned it before the Industrial Court with contention that his recorded date of birth was 15.06.1947 and hence he could not have been retired at that juncture. The learned Member of Industrial Court has considered this controversy and found that date of birth initially recorded as 15.07.1944 was later on corrected to read as 15.06.1947 and hence the said correction could not have been defeated and employer should not have switched back to earlier date without further enquiry in the matter. The Industrial Court, therefore, has quashed and set aside the notice of retirement dated 10.08.2001 and has directed the employer to conduct enquiry and thereafter only to take necessary steps. According to him, the entire approach of Respondent No. 1 in the matter is contrary to settled law and there is no material before the Industrial Court to quash and set aside the notice of retirement. He further contends that in any case, Industrial Court ought to have seen that the employee could have been compensated even later on if after enquiry his date of birth was found to be 15.06.1947. He relies upon the provisions of Rule 38 of Maharashtra (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, to urge that such change made after 30 years by an officer petitioner No. 2 could not have been acted upon by the Industrial Court.