GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs. JANKOO VITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by (1) the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, and (2) The Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Bombay, to set aside and quash the order dated March 26, 1973, passed by the 2nd respondent Mr. A T. Zambre, the then presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Bombay, on an application filed before him by the 1st respondent Jankoo Vithal under S. 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"' holding that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the 1st respondent with effect from December 8, 1970, was void and he shall be deemed to be in service and is, therefore, entitled to the resultant wages and allowances and other benefits.

(2.) The relevant facts are these : The 1st respondent was employed by the Great India Peninsula Railway, the predecessors of the Central Railway, on November 2, 1943, as a Running Room Bearer at Victoria Terminus Station, Bombay. All the time of his appointment, the 1st respondent was unable to give his date of birth but represented to the authorities that this age was 28 years. In the service register, the age of the 1st respondent was accordingly entered as 28 years. On May 14, 1970, the 1st respondent made an application to the authorities stating therein that his year of birth was erroneously entered as 1915, on the basis of which his age in the year 1943 was recorded as 28 years, when his correct date of birth was January 15, 1926. The 1st respondent applied to the authorities that his date of birth may be corrected. Along with his application, the 1st respondent produced the necessary copy of the school register. However, the authorities thought that this was not a fit case for recommending to the 1st petitioner for the alternation of the already recorded date of birth of the 1st respondent. In the meantime, the authorities decided not to retain the 1st respondent in service beyond the age of 55 years. By an order dated September 3/5, 1970, the Assistant Personnel Officer, Central Railway, on the basis of the report made in that behalf by the Station Superintendent, V.T., Bombay, after giving the 1st respondent the prescribed three months' notice, served on the 1st respondent on September 8, 1970, compulsorily retired the 1st respondent from service from December 8, 1970.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed an application against the petitioners before the 2nd respondent under S. 33C(2) of the Act on January 19, 1971. In that application the 1st respondent contended that he was born on January 15, 1926 and he was entitled to remain in service as a matter or right until he reached the age of superannuation. He contented that he was unlawfully retrenched from service from December 8, 1970. He also Contended that the order of compulsory retirement was not passed by the compulsory retirement was not passed by the competent authority. He, therefore, claimed wages, allowances and other benefits from December 8, 1970, on the ground that as the order of compulsory retirement passed against the 1st respondent was void, he must be deemed to be still continuing in service and was entitled to receive all the wages, allowances and other benefits.