INDRABALI RAMNIHOR YADAV Vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Textile worker, employed under the Respondent-Mills, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.3.2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 611 of 1998 whereby his complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) The facts in the present Petition are within a very narrow compass. According to the Petitioner his date (year) of birth was 1946 as recorded in the School Leaving Certificate and the ESI Card and that the Respondent-Mills have wrongly recorded his birth date as 1935 in the Service Record and in the Leave Card. The Petitioner has, therefore, contended that he could not be superannuated on the basis of the year of birth, 1935 and that on the basis of his correct birth year 1946, he could not be retired on 16.3.1998. The Petitioner claims to have joined the employment of the Respondent- Mills on and from 17.5.1972 and that he was made permanent in the year 1981 pursuant to the Orders passed by the Labour Court. According to the Petitioner, he had not reached the age of superannuation of 60 years on 16.3.1998. According to the Petitioner, he had still 12 years of service to his credit. Under the Standing Orders the age of superannuation is 60 years and the employee could be continued under the Standing Order 20A if he continues to be efficient in his work. When the Petitioner came to know in the department that he would be retired treating his birth date as 1935, he approached the Respondent-Mills by writing three letters and pointed out that his correct birth date was 1946 and he could not be retired as was contemplated by the Respondent-Mills. It appears that there was no response from the Respondent-Mills to the said letters. The Petitioner therefore filed a Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Sections 28 and 30 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Before the Industrial Court the Petitioner examined himself and also examined Head Master of the School to prove the School Leaving Certificate wherein his birth date was recorded as 30.7.1947. He also examined the Inspector of ESI Corporation to prove his birth date as 1946. The Respondent-Mills also adduced oral and documentary evidence before the Industrial Court.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings and evidence the learned member of the Industrial Court held that the date of birth of the Petitioner was 1935 and he discarded the evidence of the Petitioner in respect of his claim of his birth date being 1946. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has appreciated the evidence of the Head Master who was examined by the Petitioner to prove the school leaving certificate. According to the learned member of the Industrial Court there was a major discrepancy in the School Leaving Certificate. The Petitioner's name is "Yadav" while in the School Leaving Certificate the Surname mentioned was "Ahir". For that reasons the Industrial Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that his birth date was of 1946. It appeared to him that the certificate did not pertain to the Petitioner-Yadav but was somebody else's certificate. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has also scrutinised the evidence of the Inspector of the ESI Corporation. The learned Member of the Industrial Court has observed that ESIC record cannot be relied on for ascertaining the real year of birth of the petitioner as the purpose of maintaining such record was not for ascertaining the birth year but was to insure the industrial employee to enable to him to get the benefits under the said Act. In the aforesaid circumstances the Industrial Court has not believed the version of the Petitioner that his birth date was 1946.