DATTU RAMA SAWANT Vs. BHARAT TEXTILE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition challenges the order of the industrial Court passed in a Revision Application setting aside the order of the Labour Court granting the petitioner wages for the period from 1. 1. 1989 to 31. 12. 1992. The Respondent was directed to make the payment within one month from the date of the order.

(2.) THE Petitioner was working with the respondent-Mill as a Helper from 1954. On 10. 12. 1988, the petitioner was informed that he would stand superannuated from 1. 1. 1989 on completion of 60 years of age. Thereafter, the Petitioner informed the Respondent that his date of birth was 20. 11. 1931 and that he was entitled to continue in service for a further period of three years. On 1-1. 1989, the Petitipner's services were terminated in accordance with the letter dated 10,12. 1988 informing him that he had reached the age of superannuation. Aggrieved by this termination of his services, the Petitioner sent an approach letter under section 42 of the BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946. As his grievance was not redressed , the petitioner filed an application under sections 78 and 79 of the Act challenging the order of termination of his services. This application was filed on 20. 2. 1989. The Respond en t contested the claim of the Petitioner and stated that his data of retirement was correctly recorded by them and therefore, the Patitioner had been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The labour Court by its order dated 7. 1. 1994 held that the petitioner had not been able to prove that his date of birth was 20. 11. 1931 as the birth certificate produced by him did not tally with his name. However, the Labour court held that assuming the year of birth of the petitioner was 1929, he ought to have been continued in service till the age of 63 years in accordance with standing order 20 (A) of the Standing Orders applicable to the mill workers. The Labour Court also held that retiring the petitioner in January 1989, when his exact date of birth was not known was illegal and that the petitioner ought to have been continued in service in any case upto 31. 12. 1989. Taking both these issues into consideration, the Labour Court directed the Respondent to pay wages to the Petitioner from 1. 1. 1989 to 31. 12. 1992.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this order, the Respondent preferred a revision application against the order of the Labour Court. The Revision Application was allowed and the Labour Court's order was set aside.