LILY BABU Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER FOR GREATER MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 16-4-2001, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, rejecting Complaint (ULP) No. 44 of 1998 filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though initially she had disclosed her date of birth to be 22-9-1938 on the basis of the school leaving certificate. However, the petitioner was in fact born on 8-12-1945 and therefore based on circular dated 10-3-1986 the petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to make necessary changes in her service records in relation to the date of birth of the petitioner but the same was illegally refused by the respondents and further the petitioner was served with the retirement memo dated 1-10-1996 stating that she would stand retired with effect from 1-10-1996. The refusal to carry out the necessary corrections in the service records pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner inspite of documentary evidence having been produced in support of the claim of the petitioner in that regard is totally in violation of the circular of the Corporation dated 10-3-1986, and therefore it clearly amounts to unfair labour practices being adopted towards the petitioner by the Corporation and ignoring the same the complaint having been rejected, according to the petitioner, the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned order, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the rejection of the application for correction of the birth date of the petitioner was on the ground that the application was not in consonance with the circular dated 10-3-1986 and though the Corporation had never raised any doubt regarding the genuineness of the birth certificate submitted by the petitioner, the Industrial Court erred in going into the issue regarding the genuineness of the birth certificate and thereby rejecting the complaint of the petitioner on that count. According to the learned Advocate, therefore, the Industrial Court has acted illegally and the rejection of the complaint cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case.